having moved that the Serjeant at Arms be called in to state the circumstances connected with the service of the Process, in an action at law against him by sir Francis Burdett; the Serjeant was accordingly called in.

then said to him, "The House being informed that you have some statement to make regarding the service of a Process in an action at law against you by sir Francis Burdett, is desirous of knowing what statement on, this subject you have to make."

informed the House, that a person yesterday delivered to him a Paper, which he now held in his hand; and that the same person came to him some time since, and required of him a copy of the Warrant of the commitment of sir Francis Burdett:

And the said Paper was thereupon, delivered in, and read; and is as followeth:

"Middlesex to wit. The sheriff is commanded to take Francis John Colman, esq. and Richard Roe, if they be found in his Bailiwick, and that he keep them safely; so that he may have their bodies before the lord the king at Westminster on Wednesday next after 15 days of Easter, to answer to sir Francis Burdett, bart. in a plea of trespass on, the case; and that he then have there this precept. By Bill,

Markham and Le Blanc."

"Francis John Colman, esq.—You are served with this Process, to the intent that you may, by your attorney, appear in his Majesty's court of King's-bench at "the return thereof, being the 9th day of May instant, in order to your defence in this action. (Endorsed) Ellis, Gray's. Inn Square, May 7th, 1810."

asked, what was the Serjeant's answer to this request?

answered, he had shewn him a copy of the warrant.

thought it proper to state, that he had desired the Serjeant to act as he had done in this respect, not conceiving it to be proper that any person who inquired for a sight of the warrant issuing from that House, should be kept in ignorance of it.

moved, "That the matters stated by the Serjeant at Arms attending this House, and the Paper delivered in by him, be referred to the Committee appointed to consider of the Proceedings in the matter of sir Francis Burdett."

contended that if any thing on the face of the paper in question affected the privileges of the House, the best mode of vindicating their dignity would be to. find the person by whom the Process had been served, and to take the proper steps for punishing him.

thought it much more wise to refer the service of Process to the committee, previous to the adoption of the idea thrown out by the hon. baronet.

was of opinion that this was altogether an improper proceeding. Either the steps they might adopt were, or were not, intended to have some weight with the courts below. If it was expected that the expression of their determination on the subject was to have any weight with these courts, what would this be but to interfere with the ordinary course of law? It appeared to him that it would be infinitely more satisfactory to the feelings of the public, and must in the long-run be also infinitely more gratifying to the feelings of the House, that the matter were entirely left to the decision of the courts of law, without the intervention of any resolutions of their own. On these grounds he should object to referring the matter to the Committee.

said, that he had throughout taken infinite pains to be correct in all the parts of this proceeding; he had considered every step in it most coolly, and had acted in all the stages of it to the best of his judgment. In no part had he felt more anxiety to be right than in the measure of appointing a Committee, which it was proposed now to charge with the matter respecting the Serjeant, as well as that which related to Mr. Speaker. He sincerely wished that no such step had been taken.—But he was particularly averse to its existing with its present power, and he had, after due reflection, for that reason come to a determination not to attend the Committee, because it seemed to him to counteract the course which he thought should be taken as the only means of securing the privileges of the House. He had satisfied himself, and he presumed to think that what he had to say would satisfy every gentleman who heard him, that he had acted correctly. When the Committee was moved for the other day, he had come to the House determined to oppose it, from a conviction that it was unnecessary, and that it was worse than unnecessary, by giving ground for implying that the House, by appointing a Committee, doubted of its own clear and ascertained privileges. He had latterly acquiesced in its appointment, however, under the impression that there were, or might be, individual members, who, from their pursuits and engagements, might not have had the means of inquiry: and they had a right to be satisfied. He had, however, a most serious objection, one that was insuperable, viz. that the Committee should have power to report opinions. To delegate to them such a power was, in his opinion, an abandonment of the privileges of that House. He thought the House had the privileges sought to be called in question. It was necessary for its own safety it should have them, and, if so, it must also have the means of enforcing those privileges.—He said he would shortly illustrate what were his ideas on the subject from what passed previous to the year 1770, when members and their servants, who had formerly enjoyed the privilege of immunity from action, were deprived of that right, when all which was declared to remain with members was the personal privilege of freedom from arrest. This was done by the act of the 10th Geo. 3. c. 50, brought in by the present lord Onslow. Previous to this period, not a session passed without its being shewn what the warrant of the Speaker by order of the House could do. When a member, or even the servant of a member of that House, was served with notice of action, and complaint made, the person who served the action was brought to the bar, was examined whether he was the person who served the writ; and if he confessed he was, or if it was on his denial proved otherwise, the matter was either referred to a Committee of privileges, or the person was at once ordered into custody. That privilege being taken away, the remaining personal privileges were few. Any instance of proceeding upon them since that time were therefore very rare. A return of precedents from that period, of commitment for serving legal process, would, he believed, be nihil. Few persons now existing could have any actual experience of the mode of any proceeding then adopted. Forty years disuse of a daily practice, made the mode of executing the power, fall into oblivion, and might afford a reasonable apology for the House not being at once alert in its course of proceeding, when Mr. Ellis served the Speaker with notice. But it is no reason for not following a course, which, when considered, is the only course that can be followed, consistently with the privileges of the House; and that it was inconsistent with those privileges to appoint a committee vested with a power to recommend a different course. His opinion was decidedly this, that, according to ancient invariable precedent, when legal process was served upon a member, the person serving it was brought to the bar, examined to the matter, and, according to the nature of the case, committed for the breach of privilege. On the present occasion that course should be followed with Mr. Ellis; he who indorsed the notice, should be committed for the contempt, and the House should come to resolutions respecting this breach of privilege, that there might be notice to all the world, that the act done was a breach of privilege, and that the acts of the House could not be questioned in any court or place, in a legal proceeding out of the House. In such a case as this, the House could not delegate its powers to any Committee. They could not, consistently with established rules, appoint them to deliberate when the case was clear; or refer to them a case in which there was no question. He stated this, that on any future occasion, when the question might be brought forward, he might stand rectus in curia. He had in his absence been nominated a member of that Committee. He had taken till next morning to consider how he ought to act, and then he wrote to a learned friend, also a member of it, begging that the members might not wait for him, as he was determined not to attend. He felt it to be inconsistent with his duty, to sanction, by attending the Committee, a proceeding which cast so much doubt upon the confidence which the House ought to have on the existence of its privileges. And now when the question arose as to the mode of their proceeding, he thought it becoming in the House to shew that they knew and had confidence in their own privileges. Mr. Adam said, he would not make any motion to this effect, because the conduct of the business was in other hands, but he earnestly called on the gentlemen opposite, to move, that the person who had served the writ in question should be brought to the bar of the House. What fie had said he bad urged with moderation. His only wish was the sustentation of the rights and privileges of that House, as Consistent with the constitution of the country. He had discharged his duty, and had acted in such a way as was satisfactory to his mind.

said, that he perfectly agreed with the objections his hon. and learned friend had advanced for not at- tending the committee. As his reasons were likewise the same, he did not wish to occupy the attention of the House by repeating them. His objections, however, would have been partly got over, if the power of the committee was to be of a limited nature; but when that power was so generally granted, he thought the House should keep it only in its own hands. As he did not choose to give any advice or instruction to the committee, he had of course a natural objection to any interference. On every other point he perfectly coincided with his hon. and learned friend; he deemed the course he wished to be adopted the only old beaten track of the House; it was first enacted 40 years ago. Since that, things of the present nature had been so rare, that the knowledge of the track has been almost lost, and indeed what has happened could not have been expected. He agreed with his hon. and learned friend, that the only safe mode for the House to pursue, was to move in the marked tract of the House of Commons—stare super vias antiquas. If it should then be found that the powers they possessed fell short of what was required for the support of their privileges on the present occasion, it could only arise from the circumstance, that no such case as the present had ever occurred. Still, however, it was the duty of that House to act up to what had been done by their ancestors. He only wished, in what he had, said, to stand acquitted with the House, and to declare that he had not refused acting on the committee, because he was adverse to the hon. gentlemen opposite.

declared that he for one entertained no doubt whatever of the privileges of the House, and of the propriety of pursuing the course adopted by their ancestors for their preservation. There was no course but one for maintaining those privileges, and no place but one in which they ought to be maintained; for it was impossible to think of, referring the privileges of the House of Commons to the courts of law in order to decide their validity and extent. Conceiving therefore that the appointment, of a committee to give an opinion on a subject to do no good, and might possibly do harm, he had declined attending upon it.

agreed that the privileges of that House could not be questioned before any tribunal whatever, but that they themselves were the sole judges, of their privileges. He wished it to be generally known, that his hon. friends, who had already spoken, concurred with him and with those who sat on the same side with him, or if it pleased them better, that they (the ministers) concurred with them (Mr. Adam, &c.) in this opinion. It was not from any doubt on this head that his hon. friends had been nominated to be members of the committee. This was a point on which he presumed to think that no man could doubt. But they had been put on the committee for the purpose of lending their assistance in suggesting the best mode in which the privileges of the House could be enforced with the greatest safety to that cause which they all joined in supporting. He only rose for the purpose of expressing his regret that his hon. friends had declined acting on the committee.

felt the sincerest regret at the view his hon. and learned friends had taken of the obligation by which they were precluded from becoming members of the committee. He gave them full credit for their motives, and acquitted them of any design to embarrass the committee in any report they might make. He thought, however, that every argument they had used in support of the propriety of their declining to act, proved directly the contrary; and if they had a clear view of the steps necessary to be taken in such a proceeding, instead of being a reason for their declining to act, this should rather have operated as an inducement to them to impart to the committee the clear view of the case which they themselves possessed. They might, unfortunately, not have been able to inspire others with the same clear view of the subject which they themselves had, but still if this had been, the case, they could easily have rescued themselves from any imputation which might have arisen from their being members of a committee which had refused to be governed by their wise counsel. On the other hand, if the committee had been unanimous, must not the report have possessed greater weight, coming, as it must have done, from gentlemen of every political sentiment in that House.

conceived the course pointed out, by his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Adam) to be the only means the House had of asserting its own jurisdiction, and the only means which had been in the use of being adopted when a summons was served on that House. If this mode of proceeding was passed by, he hoped it would not be said hereafter, that there were persons present who had not yet suggested it to the House. He was inclined at this moment to believe, that this was the first instance a process had been served on an officer of this House, for an act proceeding from the House, in which the attorney who issued the process was not ordered to attend. He did not mean to move this, but merely to suggest it; and to bring to the recollection of the House, that they were now to consider what was fit to be done with an attorney, telling the House it was through his instrumentality that this process has been served. If the House was now to pass it by, it was no fault of his. He only suggested to gentlemen opposite what was the regular and established mode of proceeding; and hoped he should not be told, if, after a lapse of six weeks, it should appear that the proper season of resorting to this proceeding had been allowed to pass over—that he and every other member of that House was to blame for the omission, as much as the gentlemen opposite who were in the service of government.

The motion was then put and carried. And on the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the names of the Lord Advocate of Scotland, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Rose, and Mr. Stephen, were added to the Committee already appointed.

moved that the adjourned debate on this subject (see p. 902) be resumed, which being agreed to,

said, that his opinion when he first read this petition was that it should not be received, and every subsequent reflection he had made on the subject confirmed him in this opinion. He did not object to it because it did not convey the sentiments of the majority of the livery, for that would not be a sufficient reason for rejecting it. Even if it could be supposed to be the petition only of the twelve persons by whom it was signed, still it was proper it should be received if couched in becoming language. As the House was told, however, that it was likely to receive a great many other petitions, it was necessary that they should d know from what descriptions of parsons they came; that they were the petitions of the people of England; and not the claims of a small set of disaffected persons; even this, however, should not operate as a complete exclusion. Neither was he of opinion that the petition should be rejected because it contained doctrines to his mind unfounded; but because it was part of a complete system of insult pursued out of doors to vilify and degrade this House. He was for rejecting it on account of the number of impertinent and extraneous topics introduced into it; and for the resemblance it bore to another petition which had been already refused. There might be some minute lines of distinction between the two, but they were obviously the offspring of the same parents, and had the same objects in view. Like the Middlesex Petition, it contained a variety of most offensive passages; though it had the appearance of being more respectful, it had none of the reality; there might be a difference between them, but still the resemblance was such—qualis decet esse sororum, and this likeness shewed that they had sprung from the same origin. The petition; in fact, was founded on the resolutions passed at the same meeting, and these were such a set of such a nature, that in other times, the person who had dared to authenticate them by his signature, would not have been out of Newgate 24 hours after he had done so. Another reason for his rejecting the petition was to be found in the circumstances which attended the meeting, It was there stated, that the petition was somewhat different from the resolutions, but that this was done only with the view of getting the petition received. He then read the two first resolutions, and asked, if it was possible had they formed part of the petition, that any man could be found who would say that it ought to be received?—In their complaints against the vote on the Walcheren expedition, they did not even give credit to the minority; and even the hon. gentleman (Mr. Whitbread) who went farthest with them, was at one of their meetings called a decoy duck. The House must even sacrifice the privilege of committing for libel producing obstruction before it could satisfy them; for the hon. gent. at another meeting, by venturing to assert the privilege thus far, raised such a clamour, that he was obliged to stop it by giving the health of that distinguished patriot Mr. Waithman. But what they aimed at was, the destruction of the privileges of the House, that by this means they might wound the constitution. While he thought the House ought not to be captious in finding fault with petitions, yet where a spirit of insult was manifest from he document itself, it ought to be rejected. The reception of it would only render the House an accomplice in its own degradation. The good sense of the people he hoped would teach them to respect the privileges of the House which existed for their own benefit.

contended, that the petition ought to be received. He saw no expressions it contained that could warrant its rejection. Had it been addressed to the persons assembling in St. Stephen's, or had it carried on the face of it a denial of their existence as the House of Commons, then indeed the arguments that had been used would have been admissible. But the petition contained no such expressions. It recognised their authority, and to that authority the prayer of the petitioners was addressed. Their difference of opinion could be no insult to the House, as on that difference of opinion the petition was founded. If they had acquiesced in the decision of the House, there would have been no occasion for petitioning. Their right of petitioning was not attempted to be denied; and if they had that right, they must be allowed to differ from the House on the subject that occasioned their complaints. It had been stated, that whatever might be the language of the petition, or whatever the terms in which it was couched, the resolution passed at the meeting of the livery clearly proved that the petition was intended as an insult. But the House, he contended, had no right to look to those resolutions, whatever might be their nature. The resolutions were not now before them; and if ever they should be brought before them it could only be by a specific motion, when it would be for the House to consider whether those resolutions were a breach of privilege or not. At present they had only the petition before them, and he contended that that petition could not be rejected on the ground of any resolutions that were not regularly before them. It was the petition only they had to consider, and that petition was entitled to stand or fall by its own merits. But even to these resolutions he did not see the propriety of the objection that had been made, and had they even been much stronger, they would afford no justifiable ground of rejecting the petition. He saw nothing in the terms of the petition that could authorise them to reject it. It was addressed to the House in due form, and the redress they claimed was merely matter of opinion, which the House might adopt or not as it pleased. If the petitioners differed in opinion, that opinion was expressed with deference, and it still remained with the House to determine whether they would grant the prayer or not. The truth was, that no petition would be presented to the House without an object, and that object must necessarily either be to do something they had omitted, or to undo something they had done. A petition approving, in all respects of their conduct, was not to be expected because in such a case there could be no occasion for petioning. Every petition implied complaint, and that complaint must necessarily relate either to some ground of grievance or neglect. If this petition was rejected, he saw no ground on which any petition from the people of England could hereafter be received, so that the right of petitioning must be wholly destroyed. It would be for the House to consider if they would hold out this doctrine to the people, and tell them that no complaint on their part would be henceforth heard by the House. He admitted at the same time, that there were expressions in this petition that might have been better omitted; but what were they to expect when the people had been disappointed and irritated? When it was the opinion of so many persons in and out of the House—when, he would say, it was the opinion of such a great and enlightened mind as that of the hon. gent. near him (Mr. Whitbread), not only that the House had exercised its privileges improvidently but that it had no right, in the present case, to exercise it at all—was it surprising that the people should express themselves frankly and warmly on the subject? Goaded and irritated as the people had recently been by the conduct of public men (one of whom, in whose imprudence all those difficulties in which the House found itself originated, had lately been raised to a situation of great honour and emolument,) was it surprising that the petitions should express their feelings of disgust in strong and energetic language? The House, he admitted, must have privileges; but if the House had their privileges, the people had their privileges too; and one of these privileges was to bring their complaints and grievances before that House. If they stood up in defence of their own privileges, it was but fair they should allow the people theirs. The people, whether right or wrong in their claims—whether justifiable or not in their complaints or grievances, had a right to be heard. Their petition ought to be received if the language was not wholly unconstitutional, but with the House it remained to determine, whether they should follow up their address or not. It was for this simple right he contended, and he saw nothing in the present petition that would deprive the petitioners of it.

said, it was his firm and decided conviction, that a majority, and a very great majority, of the real people, not the populace, were against the principles contained in this petition. He admitted that the populace of England approved of the sentiments of this petition, but not the people of England, and he made a great distinction between the people of England, and the populace of England, and contended, that the principles here set forth, are maintained and supported by those designing persons whose aim it was to set the populace of England above the people and the laws of England. Had the people of England approved of these sentiments, there must have been a great many more petitions than he had, hitherto, seen; but there were none—except in London, Westminster, Hackney, and Reading. To convene meetings upon subjects of politics at these populous places was not difficult, for those who connected themselves in strict alliance with the inhabitants of Fleet-lane and Saffron-hill; and with such persons when a great number of them, were collected, it was easy to raise among them the cry of No Peculation, and No Popery, or any other cry, as it was pretty certain that these sons of light would rally round each other, for the sake of plunder, if nothing else; that being the practice on which their existence depended; but he contended, and he hoped the House would believe that the language of this petition did not proceed from the people of England. As to the livery of London, they were not collected together in such a manner as they could speak the sense of the livery at large. One of his hon. friends had said, that there were present on this occasion about 2000 persons; and he maintained that not one-half of them were liverymen; and he undertook to account for this by observing, that across the Common hall there was a passage to go into the court of King's bench, so that every person who demanded admission into that open court, was entitled to enter, and persons in this way got into the common hall, who were no liverymen, under pretence of going into the court of King's bench. Thus, they passed for liverymen; and by clamour and brutality which prevail at such places, they intimidated the peaceable and the decent; for it was too much to expect that such persons would expose themselves to the brutality or ferocity of persons of that description; many of whom were assassins and pickpockets. Decent, sober, and quiet men would not attend among such a rabble. Being thus deterred from attending the common hall, some of the most respectable of the livery drew up a protest against the proceedings of this common hall. They were 1,700 in all; a greater number of the liverymen of London than they had actually attended this common hall on this occasion; they published this their protest, and they were what they professed to be, really liverymen of London; they pledged themselves, not to support the ministers, but to support the constitution of this country; that was to say, they pledged themselves to support the form of government under which we had the happiness to live, as it was formed of King, Lords, and Commons; and possessing as they did an attachment to the representatives of the people; shewing as they did, a proper regard and respect for the representatives of the people, and a full confidence in the virtue of the wisdom of the parliament and purity of the laws of the land, and the equal distribution of justice, he did believe, and after this he hoped he should not hear any thing to the contrary, that the virtuous part of the community were against the publication of such sentiments as those which were contained in this petition, but they were intimidated by these ferocious persons who attended these public meetings; there were many who knew the truth of what he was saying, and that there were, even of real property, character, and virtue, many who had been terrified into silence by a desperate mob on this occasion was notorious, but they had afterwards expressed their dissent to these turbulent proceedings. He maintained that he was no more of a party man than sir F. Burdett himself was. He was as independent in that House as any man in it, nor was he afraid to avow his sentiments on this or on any other occasion; as a proof of it, he begged leave to refer the House to his conduct in it.—He bad by his vote, shewn he could censure the son of the King—(the duke of York)—and also the brother of Mr. Pitt—(the earl of Chatham)—they had not escaped his censure, since it appeared to him that they deserved it—sir F. Burdett had met his censure also, and he deserved it a thousand times more than the other two; for he was a thousand times more criminal.—He said he was no follower of a court faction, any more than he was a partisan in these turbulent proceedings; nor were the people of England factious or pleased with these violent proceedings. When he spoke of the people of England he alluded to that middle class of the community, among whom resided so much virtue and so much intelligence, and that class of the community was of opinion, that the House of Commons had not exceeded its authority in the present case, but had exerted that authority for the protection of its own proceedings, and for the general benefit of the people of England.—He did not admit that the feelings of the people of England were such as the hon. bart. had stated, that is, favourable to the sentiments contained in this petition; these sentiments and feelings he believed were not common to the people of England; as a proof of it, there were no petitions from any quarter, except that of this metropolis and the county of Middlesex; but when the meeting was at Hackney, which could easily communicate with Saffron hill, on, account of its being in the vicinity, there a mob might be raised at any time. As a proof that these proceedings which were had at public meetings, were the work of a few individuals, and not the spontaneous effusion of the hearts of the mass of the people of England, he called upon the House to remember that there were no petitions of this kind from any part of the country. He took that to be a proof of these principles not being countenanced by the people of England. He did not pretend to infallibility. Should other petitions come, he should change his opinion; but he set very little value on the resolutions of such a mob as that which he had endeavoured to describe; they were strangers to each other when they met, and generally followed any leader and voted any thing that was proposed to them; where a meeting was held of neighbours, and persons who knew each other, and they passed resolutions, expressive of their complaints, attention should be paid to the determination of such a meeting, because it was the result of the genuine feeling of the people of England. He did not mean to draw a conclusion from all these observations against the reception of the present petition offered to the House, that was a matter entirely with the House, and they would deal with it according to its deserts; he should not object to it on account of its being signed by only 12 men, but he could no more help thinking that these things were the effect of the management of a few, than he could help thinking, that he was himself a citizen of London. And applying the knowledge which he possessed as a citizen of London, and comparing the spirit of the resolutions which passed at the meeting of the livery, with the language of the petition now offered, he would say, if there be one man in that House who would lay his hand upon his heart, and then declare, he did not believe these petitioners intended to insult the House, all he could say, was, that such a member would be justified in voting for the reception, of this petition; but the judgment of such a member was very different from his; he trusted, however, that the feeling he had upon the subject of this petition, was consonant to the general feeling of the House, and that, therefore, this petition would be rejected by the House. He was ready to throw open the doors of the House of Commons, as widely as possible, for the purpose of receiving genuine petitions; that was to say, those statements of grievances really felt by those who complained of them, and who really did seek redress in, the true spirit by which redress ought to be expected, and by which alone it could be obtained, by civility of language and decency of deportment but it would be childish folly to throw open the door of the House of Commons to such a thing as this, for it was neither more nor less than a studied insult on the House of Commons, reflecting on events, some of which had occurred last year, and which had no real connection with the matter which the petitioners profess now to be their object to attain; and stating some things as facts, which in reality never occurred. Such, for instance, as that of our troops going to Walcheren without any object, and without hope;—that was not true, for they had an object and an hope in the expedition to Walcheren, although both were cruelly frustrated. To conclude, believing, as he did, that this petition did not speak the sense of the people of England—in any legitimate sense of the word people; and believing, that some of the instigators of these proceedings connected themselves with desperadoes, who, by their presence, struck terror into the virtuous part of the community who happened to witness their clamour by which they imposed silence on those who differed from them in opinion—he should vote against the reception of this petition.

observed, that it must be the general wish, to come to a calm vote on the subject, whatever that vote might be, but the speech of the hon. gent. who spoke last was not much calculated to promote that object. Having voted for the Middlesex petition, the House would not be surprised that he should support the receiving of this. It was of the utmost importance that those who proposed to vote for the rejection of the petition, should distinctly state the grounds of that rejection. If the doors of the House, according to the expression of the Speaker, which had been received with such universal approbation, were to be thrown wide open to petitioners the House ought not to make any great difficulty on account of the expressions of persons who really thought themselves aggrieved. The House ought to be desirous that these appeals should be made to itself, and that these differences of opinion should find their proper channel in addresses to the House. He was not in the House last night, and therefore had no means of knowing what passed in it except through the information of friends and other sources of communication; upon matters of this sort he had endeavoured, through these mediæ, to inform himself of what passed on that occasion, and he owned he did not then collect, nor could he now see, the ground on which the petition now offered to the House was to be rejected by it. That was information which he had yet to acquire. He had heard it said, that the present petition was meant to insult the House. How was he to collect the meaning of those petitioners but by the language of the petition. That language was humble. His learned friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, thought otherwise; he hoped he would point out hereafter, wherein the language was not humble. The matter of the petition could not be agreeable to the House of Commons, because it was a petition presented to them against themselves, and if the House of Commons were determined not to have any thing presented to them that was disagreeable, they never would have any petition presented against any act of their own at all. But, gentlemen said, "look at the petition, and then put your hand upon your heart and say, whether you do not think it was intended to send to you an insult, although there was nothing offensive in the language." He could not take upon himself to say that he had been able to perceive in the petition any thing that appeared insulting, he had examined it with all the care he was able, and yet be had not been able to find out any offensive, language in this petition.—(Murmurs from the ministerial benches)—Gentlemen might think what they pleased, but he had no desire, no wish but that of preventing the House getting into a situation which might increase its perplexity, for it had difficulties enough to encounter already. He wished to conciliate the people, rather than irritate them; for what object could he have in taking any course but that which was likely to allay any animosity, rather than awake it? He should therefore ask the House what the reason was that this petition was to be refused reception, except merely because it is the opinion of the House that this petition is certainly intended to insult the House; but he could not see one point of difference between the present petition which is to be rejected, and the Westminster petition which was received, except that the Chancellor of the Exchequer approved of the reception of one, and disapproves of the reception of the other. He saw no difference in the two petitions, except that which was greatly in favour of the present petition. But it had been said, that if the resolutions which preceded this petition were examined, it would instantly appear, that the petitioners were angry with the House of Commons, and therefore it is natural to suppose that they meant to insult the House. He really thought the House of Commons were not to look at the resolutions at all, they were not before the House, and they were not intended to be transmitted to the House, nor should the House consider itself bound to know of their existence; but if the House were disposed to take notice of such resolutions, and found that they contained evidence of anger against the House, it was evidence also that the petitioners, although they felt anger, expressed none towards the House, which shewed that the petitioners did not intend to insult the House; else why should they conceal their anger. So far was this from being against the petitioners, that they ought to be respected for their forbearance in the language they had used towards the House, since they had expressed much less than they felt. Nor had the House any reason to take offence at any person being angry with it for its conduct. The House ought only to act on what had been expressed, not on what had been thought, for if the House was disposed to punish every body who thought ill of its proceedings, perhaps it would be difficult to know where to stop; for that would go to the rejection of every petition, that ever was, or could be presented to the House, in consequence of its own conduct. But the hon. gent. who spoke last, had said, more than once, and seemed to dwell with a good deal of emphasis upon the expression, that the sentiments contained in this petition were not the sentiments of the people of England—it did not purport to be the sentiment of the people of England, it purported only to be the sentiment of the livery of London in common-hall, assembled regularly and constitutionally, and to be the sentiment of a majority of the livery on the occasion to which the petition referred; that out of 3,000, or 2,000, no matter which, that were assembled on that day and on that occasion, there were not 20 who dissented in all. But if this petition was to be rejected, because it is not the sentiment of the people in England, it would come to this, that every petition must be rejected that is not agreeable to the people of England, which, besides the difficulty of ascertaining how the fact stood in such a case, involved many other and insuperable difficulties; but that was not, never had been, and he hoped, never would be, the rule by which petitions were to be judged of; the question was, not whether it was consonant with the wishes of the people at large, but whether it was so, with regard to the wishes of those who presented it. Was that House to wait till they heard the opinions of all the people before they admitted a petition from a portion of them? The hon. gent. had made distinctions between the people and populace, and had fortunately given a definition which enabled others to collect that he contrasted the middling with the lower orders. But was that House, designed to be the representative of the whole of the people, to allow of any such contrast? And then the hon. gent. said, that decent people were prevented from assembling in the hall, from a dread of pickpockets and assassins!! He would not have mentioned this had he not thought that it would be a disgrace to this popular assembly, whose dignity depended upon its being a popular assembly, to pass over such expressions without notice. As for the clamour that was always to be heard at popular meetings, it even sometimes prevailed in that House; but as far as he had heard, there was nothing like violence at the meeting; and to say that persons could not attend it without imminent danger to their property and lives, was not a true description of it. He repeated, that if they were to reject the petition they ought to state the grounds distinctly. The hon. gent. said, that other counties had not petitioned, but if the doctrine was to be acted upon that you ought not receive one petition for fear of encouraging others, it was not likely that other counties ever would petition. He thought, on the contrary, that the encouraging of others to come to the House for the redress of grievances was a reason for receiving this petition. It was, he repeated, of the greatest importance to encourage this mode of appeal. He would vote for the reception of the petition.

stated, that the reason why he approved of the adjournment last night was that many were absent from not knowing that the petition was to have been presented. He never had any doubt upon the subject himself. He disclaimed the resolutions as any ground of objection to the petition, though these were highly offensive, and might have been a just cause of punishment for breach of privilege. But men for their improper conduct in other respects were not to be deprived of their inherent right of petition. The question was, whether the petition itself was couched in proper language. In his opinion it was not. When they said that the House had imprisoned two of their fellow subjects without law and against law, it was not the introduction of such expressions by an "humbly conceive," that could render them unexceptionable. They might as well say, that they humbly conceived that the House had not the power of taxing, or of passing a bill, and yet could these expressions be endured? The petition was a studied insult. He did not go into the falsehood of the assertions, that they had acted against law, &c. since it was well known, that the privileges of the House were part of the law of the land, and coeval with it. It was with these that our ancestors fought against arbitrary power; and he hoped, that if it was necessary they should again be exercised in a similar manner, either against the crown or the populace. It was the duty of the present generation to hand them down to their posterity as they had received them from their fathers. He had no hesitation in voting against the reception of the petition.

observed, that the very idea of a petition implied disapprobation, and that, if disapprobation of the conduct of the House was to be a ground of objection, they might have addresses, but they never could have petitions. Were they to force the people to allow their grievances to ferment in their own bosoms instead of coming with a declaration of them to the House? This was what had produced the calamities on the continent. The privilege of stating their grievances, was one which he hoped the people would never part with; for, if they did, there was an end of the constitution. This petition came from a regular body legally convened, which an hon. gent., who had been elected to a high office in the city (Mr. Jacob) had characterised, by coupling them with assassins and pickpockets from Saffron-hill and Fleet-lane! Were the Livery of London and the Inhabitants of Westminster, to be debarred from presenting petitions, because they happened to have such places as Saffron-hill and Fleet-lane in their neighbourhood? As to his assertion, that there were no petitions from other counties, there might be such petitions in good time; but at any rate were they to refuse to hear a part of the people till the whole came forward? Sir J. next adverted to the counter declaration, which he contended was irregular. How were counties to be assembled if this practice was to become general. Instead of going about from house to house for signatures, all who could ought to have attended the meeting. It was their duty to have done so. But then the hon. gent. said, that the King's-bench was sitting at Guildhall, and that a great number got in under the pretence of going to that court. Was that always the case? Were these meetings never to be considered as of any great consequence, except when they approved of the conduct of ministers? A great deal was said about taking the sense of the people in opposition to that, of the House of Commons, when the cry of "no Popery" was set up. They had already found that turn against themselves, and they were not the first who erected engines from which they themselves suffered. It would be a fatal day for the constitution of the country, when the people should be prevented from expressing their opinions.

asked whether those who supported the petition thought there were any terms sufficiently harsh to justify the rejection of a petition? If not, then he asserted that it was perfectly useless to put the question, whether any petition should be received. He asked whether the House might not claim the humble privilege of an individual, to repel insult? If it had not this privilege, it was necessary that members should know it, that they might thank the petitioners for their forbearance. The worse way to prevent insults was to acquiesce in them; and he did not think it very squeamish in them to take offence at a charge of murder, and an assertion, that their conduct tended to establish a military despotism. If they were to lay that paper on the table, they might prepare to expect insult—it knocked at the door in the humble character of a petition; but when it got in it would shew its real nature. He thought it was not too much to require that petitions should at least have the negative merit of decency. It was said that the construction of the House did not entitle it to any thing better; but those who looked to a purer House of Commons ought not to admit a precedent that might be applied to any future House. Among their objections to the petition, one was, that it founded its prayer upon the assumption that an illegal act had been committed at the time when, according to their own view of it, the question was pending. He would vote for the rejection of this paper.

, after expressing his regret at being compelled to differ from some valued friends of his, said, that there never was a question since the commencement of his political career, upon which he felt less doubt. The House could have no fixed rule with respect to the nature of petitions. Each must in a great measure stand on its own merits. He allowed that the temper of the House ought to be rather to extend than to contract the avenues for petitions, but they ought to guard against the wanton abuse of the right, if he knew no way more likely to profane the right; if he might be allowed the expression, than to allow a wanton attack on the privileges of the House, which were those of the people. He would not reject a petition, though the prayer was against his own opinion. But he must attend to times and circumstances. If this had been an insulated petition, he would not have been much disposed to reject it, though he did not altogether approve of it. But this was the third improper petition, or rather the second, one of them having been received. This was at least the second affront which had been offered. But it had been said, that the charges against the House were not direct assertions, but stated as opinions. How would this have answered in private life? Suppose any one said to any gentleman, to himself for instance, that he was a common cheat, a coward, or an incendiary, then he would be entitled to repel the insult; but if it was stated as only the opinion of the person accusing him, then it was to pass without notice! There was in truth nothing in the distinction. He would ask any one to read that petition, and then to say whether its primary object was not to affront the House? The prayer was only a secondary object. Whoever read the speeches delivered at these meetings, could hardly fail of being convinced that there was a systematic plan for keeping up the flame in the minds of the people, to the subversion of the rights and privileges of the House. If the House should receive this petition, it would not be ascribed to a desire of conciliation, but to doubt and fear. He then adverted to a speech of an hon. friend of his, which he described as an echo to the petition. If he understood that it was intended to be so, he hoped that few would agree with his hon. friend in opinion. He concurred with him as to the impropriety of the vote on the Walcheren Expedition. No doubt majorities of that House might be wrong. He must suppose so, as the greater part of his votes had been given in a minority. But they were not to judge of the House from a particular act. They were to take the aggregate of advantage and disadvantage.

denied that he had expressed any opinion upon the merits of the Petition, as his right hon. friend had asserted.

was glad to hear the disavowal.

, as a member of the livery of London, as well as a member of that House, felt himself bound to make some observations upon this question. As a member of the livery, he dared to say that the whole of that body felt as indifferent as he did to the reflections thrown out in the course of this debate, and particularly to the opinion of an hon. gent. on the other side, who had indulged so much in such reflections. That hon. gent. had thought proper to describe the common hall as a tumultuous turbulent assembly, but such could not be the opinion of that body by the Lord Chief Justice of England: for that noble lord experienced no interruption whatever, although exercising his judicial functions immediately adjoining the hall; and when he entered the hall itself, on his way from the court of King's Bench, far from witnessing any conduct that would justify the character ascribed to the meeting by the hon. gent. his lordship was treated in passing with the utmost deference.—It was stated that the petition from Middlesex was a direct and declaratory condemnation of the proceedings of the House of Commons; it was not pretended that the present petition resembled that petition in that respect, for it was the desire of the petitioners and their wish to convey no insult to the House; and if gentlemen would read, without connecting it with any extraneous matter, they would not find one expression in the whole of that petition that could be fairly objected to. It was objected by the right hon. gent. last night, that but a very small portion of the livery had signed the petition. He believed that the common practice, both in London and Westminster, was that out of the immense number who usually vote for a petition, a few are selected to sign it afterwards, for and in the names of the rest, because their multitude was well known. Here he wished to be corrected, if he erred; but he understood it was not only unnecessary, but it would have been highly inexpedient, from the consumption of time, and for other reasons, for the petition to be signed by every individual, although that might be done in general in the country.—The right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer had alleged that this petition contained nothing but insult, and that premeditated too; but he (Mr. Wardle) really could not conceive that any great body like the livery of London could meditate any such thing; could, if he might so express himself, condescend to offer an insult—(Hear! hear! on the ministerial benches)—yes, he would re- peat, condescend, and even degrade itself. For, in his judgment, the party that offered an insult even degraded itself more than the party that received it. Was it to be supposed, that if the party from whom this petition came, meant to insult the House, that that party could not have more effectually contrived to convey that insult through the medium of resolutions. If it were said that such resolutions might be prosecuted for libel, he would ask, whether the livery of London had not as much right to express their opinion upon public affairs as that, House could pretend to, and whether the apprehension of such a prosecution was likely to form any cause of restraint, if the livery were disposed freely to animadvert upon the conduct, or as some gentlemen would impress it, to insult the dignity of that House. Why then, should it be supposed, that if the livery meant to insult they should resort to a mode so little suited to the complete gratification of their purpose as a petition to that House itself, which necessarily subjected them to restraints? The people had an unquestionable right to declare their sentiments upon every public question; and why should they be restrained? His opinion of their rights he always had and always would maintain both in and out of that House; but in maintaining that or any other opinion, he had no intention to convey an insult.—Among the passages in this petition deemed most offensive, that which asked the House, where was its dignity and honour? was, he observed, most particularly objected to. But he would ask those who pressed the objection, where was the dignity, or the honour, or justice of the House, when it refused to investigate the charge brought forward by his hon. friend (Mr. Madocks) against two members of that House (lord Castlereagh and Mr. Perceval) relative to the sale of seats, when it prevented his hon. friend from proving the fact; when, in a word, it acquitted the delinquents, because, forsooth, the delinquency was frequent; because the accused had done nothing more than had been done before? In adverting to this circumstance, he begged to say, that the charge which it produced against that House, did not apply more to the noble lord (Castlereagh) and those about him than to the gentlemen on the opposite side who defended him. His language on this subject might be misinterpreted; but he could not hesitate to say, that by the conduct of both parties on the occasion re- ferred to, it was casually discovered, indeed distinctly avowed, that the purchase of seats in that House had been the continual practice of all administrations. How then could the livery of London be condemned for asking that House, where was its dignity, where was its justice, after overlooking such a discovery, and giving impunity to those who confessed a gross violation of its, best privileges? A right hon. gent. (Mr. Perceval) had distinctly stated in that House, that there was no question upon which both sides were so completely agreed as in a decided opposition to reform; and why should he be surprised to find his own words the language of the public? Yet he now denounced the repetition of his own language as extremely offensive. The petitioners were, it appeared, rather unlucky in repeating the right hon. gent.'s words. But, in truth, from what the right hon. gent. and others had maintained in the course of this and a recent discussion, it seemed impossible for the people to present any statement of their grievances to that House, unless the precise words in which that statement should be drawn up, were distinctly pointed out. Unless such a course indeed were chalked out, it was not possible to guard any petition against the cavilling, hypocritical spirit, which was now so prevalent, and which there was too much reason to fear proceeded from a desire to stifle the voice of the people. He would be sorry that such a desire should exist in any quarter, and particularly in that House, from which the people had a right to expect very different conduct. That the people had any intention to insult that House, he distinctly denied. If they really meant to insult, he did not think that they would petition at all. But he firmly believed that the people looked to that House as their most essential support. It was not indeed to that House that the people ever objected, but to that corruption, peculation and abuse, of which there was notoriously so much reason to complain. Such was his fixed, opinion; and if he thought otherwise, he would have pursued a different line of conduct. He fully believed that the petitioners in this case had no other object than to complain of what they deemed an abuse. If he could conceive that their intention was to insult the House, he should have no hesitation in voting for the rejection of their petition; but his conception being decidedly opposite, he would vote for its reception.

said he had not applied the epithets he had used to the Livery of London, but to those persons who had introduced themselves into the Common Hall, to the annoyance of the sober, loyal, and honest citizens.

expressed his satisfaction that the debate upon this question had been adjourned, because it gave to the House more time for consideration, and because it afforded to himself an opportunity of examining some doubts which he last night entertained. The result of that examination was the entire removal of these doubts; and he was now ready frankly to declare his intention to vote against the reception of this petition. That House might well be regarded as the focus through which all the good and bad humours of the country transpired, and he was extremely sorry to witness a disposition, which was particularly glaring of late, to bring that House, to use a phrase of law, into hatred and contempt. The petition under discussion too palpably betrayed that disposition. It dealt, to be sure, in some common-place terms of civility, but only with a view to cover what was substantially an insult. The petitioners, indeed, after reciting certain acts which are the subjects of their censure, expressly stated that such acts were nothing more than was to be expected from, the construction of that House. From such a petition, in fact, they could not expect any good, while they must mean to do evil to that House. In maintaining that that House did not consist of the representatives of the people, the authors of this petition might, perhaps, propose next to maintain as a corollary that that House had no right to pass laws. It was impossible, indeed, to calculate how far such persons might advance, if they were not withstood—if that House did not maintain its proper respect in this case by rejecting the petition. From the tone of this petition it clearly appeared, that its authors wished to degrade the character of the House. There were indeed too many who co-operated with such persons to ascribe the conduct of all parties in that House to gross corruption—to hold them forth as objects of the country's scorn; and this could not be wondered at from the nature of the language, which, was too often used within these walls. Gentlemen could not help sometimes speaking with warmth; but if they would deal fairly, he was sure they must admit that honest men might fairly differ in opinion; and that any attempt to ascribe corrupt motives was generally unjust—Nay, it too often happened, that those who most freely dealt out such imputations were least entitled to do so; and that if they escaped recrimination, it was from want of materials to justify it. But the disposition to ascribe improper motives was never the characteristic of candour, justice, and particularly upon political questions. It was an observation of that acute writer, Dr. Paley, that on all great questions which he had known to have been agitated in parliament, there was much of justice on both sides; and, as far as his experience went, he could justify the principle of this observation. He had, in fact, hardly ever known a case upon which honest men might not differ. Now, as to the Walcheren expedition, for instance, which was the subject of so much disputation, he could not approve of it; but yet he did not condemn those who differed from him, because he thought the authors of that expedition did as well as they could. But as to the merits of the discussion, he really conceived that there was a great deal of strong and just reasoning on both sides, and that, on the whole, it was a question, with regard to which honest men might differ. As to the abuse of ministers by the opposition in that House, he had been in the habit of hearing the same language from his first acquaintance with public life—from the administration of lord North down to the present. Yet that language, although industriously circulated out of doors, and particularly by artful demagogues, was, he believed, seldom justifiable, and therefore he thought it would become gentlemen in these times to consider the nature and tendency of such language, before they employed it. Although he, for one, was not blind to public abuse, or slow to apply a remedy to it wherever it was found, yet he could never be blind to the excellence of that constitution which secured the enjoyment of so much practical liberty, combined with the complete energy of the executive power, as excited the astonishment and admiration of all intelligent strangers. When he contemplated the effects of such a constitution, he could not allow his attachment to it, to be shaken by any description of abuse, because among its numerous advantages it presented the merits of correcting every abuse. Was it possible that any rational man could deny the blessings of such a constitution, as that which kept this country safe and firm, while the pillars of the world were shaken—while the great bulwarks of society in the other nations of Europe tottered to their very foundation? Let those then who loved their country—who loved mankind, cling to the main tenure of this invaluable constitution. Let such men oppose the spirit manifested in this petition; let them beware of these professions of civility which were only used to cover the daggers that would stab that House to the heart. Let that petition be rejected which sought only to insult and to injure, while it professed to respect and to supplicate.

declared his intention to vote on this occasion as he had done with regard to the petitions of Westminster and Middlesex. He would vote for the reception of the petition, but he certainly would not do so if he thought it contained a studied insult to the House. This, however, he could not persuade himself to think, because he could not suppose that men petitioning for any object, would deem it prudent to use insulting language. Indeed, if they could so intend, they could not be serious in their wish to obtain the object in view; and if their petition were rejected, that rejection would be a reproach only upon themselves, aggravated by the consideration that the conduct which produced it would rather tend to perpetuate than to remedy the evil complained of. Upon these grounds he must think it improbable that the petitioners could intend to insult the House.—With regard to the assertion of the hon. gent. (Mr. Wardle) that the gentlemen on his side of the House were more culpable than ministers in the case he referred to, because they, as he alledged, defended the sale of seats, this assertion, as well as others used in that House, and out of doors, served to prove the existence of a studied plan of misrepresentation respecting the conduct of those who were the subjects of the hon. gent.'s censure. For the fact was, that so far from defending the sale of seats, there was actually a bill in that House at the time alluded to, to prohibit such traffic altogether; which bill was brought in by an hon. friend of his (Mr. Curwen) and which bill he himself and those with whom he had the honour to act, used every exertion in their power to have carried into a law. But it seemed unsuitable to the plan he had mentioned to have any regard to justice, to candour, or to truth, From all, indeed, that he had heard and read of late, there was no doubt on his mind of the establishment of a system for propagating scandal—for promoting an impression, that all public men were alike—without principle or any regard to the public interest, and engaged in seeking only their own sinister objects. Against that House these slanders were, he observed, particularly levelled. What, that any assembly composed of gentlemen of property, talents, and education, should be actuated only by love of place or a view of plunder—could be blind to every consideration of character, and look only to the pursuit of gain? Was it possible that there could exist such an unhappy public, such a nation of fools, as to believe such language? Sure he was, that there was a great deal of integrity and honour on both sides of the House—for he never doubted the integrity or honour of any gentleman, because he happened to differ from him in opinion. There were, indeed, in all times differences of opinion among the most honourable men upon the most important topics. Many honourable men were found to differ even as to the nature of our constitution. That celebrated whig, lord Somers, was, it would be recollected, once impeached before the House of Lords, through the spirit of party, and the influence of misrepresentations, and yet did any one now believe that lord Somers was not an honest man? or did any one now believe that the great leader of the tories was not an honest man? Yet that noble lord was once the subject of considerable censure. But after the convulsions which agitated this country; after all the men of property, education and reflection had become disgusted with the conduct of those who, by the bye, pretended to be all virtuous, and the restoration of Charles the second took place, lord Clarendon rendered a most important service. When through the enthusiastic loyalty of the day, it was proposed to grant such a revenue to Charles as should make it unnecessary for him afterwards to apply to parliament, lord Clarendon, notwithstanding his devotion to monarchy, successfully resisted the idea, declaring that he would never consent to render the crown independent of parliament. Accordingly the monarch never forgot the resistance of Clarendon, and after giving him up to abuse, sold him to his enemies—Reverting to the indiscriminate censure cast upon all public men, by those whom the right hon. gent. described as modestly pretending to the exclusive possession of virtues, he expressed his apprehension that that pretension might prove to be unfounded. In fact, he was rather disposed to question this pretension altogether, because, from the whole experience of his life he never knew a man who pretended to be much better than all the rest of mankind, who did not at some period of his life prove to be much worse.

explained, that he did not mean to accuse the right hon. gent. and his friends of defending the purchase of seats in that House, but of maintaining in the case of lord Castlereagh and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that such purchases ought not to be punished.

The House then divided, and the numbers were,—For receiving the petition 36—Against it 128—Majority for rejecting the petition 92.

stated, that the subject to which he had now to direct their attention, was of no less importance than what he had already submitted to their judgment. In considering punishments as they operated to the prevention of crimes, he thought they might be divided into three classes. The principle of the first was, that the punishment of the individual should operate on society in the way of terror. The second was to put it out of the power of the person offending to commit crimes in future, either for a certain time specified in the sentence, or for ever. The principle of the third was, the reformation of the offending party. This third mode he feared had been very much neglected of late years. He was however ready to allow, that there were many very honourable exceptions in the conduct of the different counties which had established penitentiaries. A favourite system had, as he thought, most unhappily been adopted in the transportation of convicts to New South Wales. Before the restoration of Charles 2., the principle had not been adopted, nor was the transportation of convicts known; but after that time, persons found guilty of offences, entitled to the benefit of clergy, and sentenced to be imprisoned, were transported to our settlements in North America. They were not, however, sent away as perpetual slaves, but bound by indentures for seven years, and for the last three years they received wages, in order that a fund might be provided to give them a fair chance of future success in life. By the act of the 4th of George the 1st, grand and petty larceny were liable to the punishment of transportation, if the judges thought proper. Thus the law continued, until the revolution in America rendered it impossible to send over any more convicts to that country. As the persons so transported were bound in this manner, those that were rich could easily make such an agreement as that to them the punishment should be only exile, whereas to the poor labour was superadded to exile. In the beginning of the American war, the system of imprisoning convicts on board the hulks was first introduced; and an act was also passed, allowing the judges to transport convicts who were liable to transportation to any part of the world. A mode was then devised for restoring persons convicted of crimes to the habits of industry and virtue. This plan was first set on foot by the celebrated Mr. Howard, lord Auckland, and Mr. Justice Blackstone. Judge Blackstone, in his Commentaries, had descanted warmly on the advantages which were then expected from the penitentiary houses which it was proposed to establish. For 36 years a law for this purpose had remained a dead letter on the statute book, although it was a monument of eternal praise to those who had framed it. While the law so lay dormant, a project was unhappily proposed to government, of sending the convicts to New South Wales to establish a colony there. It was, perhaps, the boldest and most unpromising project which was ever held out to any administration, to establish a new colony which should consist entirely of the outcasts of society, and the refuse of mankind. The persons sent there were not even left to their natural profligacy, but had a sort of education in the hulks, which rendered them infinitely more vicious than ever they had been before. In the month of February 1787, the first embarkation was made for this new colony, consisting of 264 convicts. He was justified, from the report of a Committee of that House, in believing that the original profligacy of those men had been much increased by their long imprisonment on board the hulks. Instead of selecting for the first embarkation persons who knew any thing about country business, they chose only those who had been convicted in London and Middlesex, and who must, as inhabitants of a large city, be conceived most unfit persons for a new colony. Out of the 264, 233 who had been sentenced to imprisonment for only seven years, had laid above four years in prison, and consequently had only three years of their sentence remaining. This was a most flagrant injustice on the persons sent. During the many years since this colony had been established, the case was very frequent of sending over persons who had been on board the hulks for above six years, and whose sentence would have expired in nine or ten months. When they were sent to Botany Bay, however; there was no chance of their returning in the time that by law they were entitled to their liberty. In fact, there was no provision made for their ever returning, and this was a most peculiar hardship and injustice to the female convicts. The only mode in which the male convicts were able, after the expiration of their sentence, to return home, was by working their passage, as they had not money to pay for it. What, then, was to become of the females to whom this resource was not left? Several of them had been transported at a very early age, and the hardship and injustice which they sustained was a subject deserving of the serious consideration of that House. As to those men who returned from transportation, they were generally far more desperate and depraved than when they first went there. The education was in many instances derision; for when young boys were sent on board the hulks, they acquired in a short time a matured virility in vice, which they would not have learnt so soon in any other school. This was, in fact, a subject to which the attention of the House had not been seriously called, from the first establishment of the system. Those who escaped from the settlement wandered among the islands of the South Seas, where they were the apostles of mischief. Their character perhaps fitted them for chiefs among savages: they taught them navigation and useful arts, and many of the missionaries found their labours ineffectual from those persons having preceded them. The expence also of this establishment was most enormous, and infinitely superior to that of erecting penitentiary houses. As to the difficulty of making the prison in Newgate a place for the reform of criminals, the book of sir Richard Phillips (to whom he thought very great-credit was due for his attention to this part of his duty as sheriff), shewed that it was not possible. After paying some high compliments to the memory of Mr. Howard, he said that he was not, however, an advocate for solitary imprisonment, unless combined with useful labour. To immure a man within the walls of a solitary cell, who was used to company and of social habits, was often a punishment worse than death, unless some suitable employment was provided for him. He concluded by moving an Address to his Majesty, praying him to direct the act of the 19th of his reign, relating to penitentiary houses, to be carried into execution.

agreed in many of the general observations made by his hon. and learned friend. He thought that it would be better to put off the discussion for the present, and he should take every pains to inform himself fully on the subject, before it should be again discussed. As to imprisonment on board the hulks, that was now very different from what it had been at the time the committee presented its report. By the exertions of a most able magistrate, Mr. Graham, a mode of imprisonment, which was originally most unwise, had become salutary. The convicts were laborious and diligent, and probably did obtain habits of industry during their imprisonment, which would be useful to them when the term of their imprisonment was expired. No establishment could be more economical, for he really believed that, from the value of their works, the establishment supported itself. They were in general reputed to be such good workmen, that the lords of the admiralty had applied to him for the direction of one of their hulks, as they did not think they could find better labourers any where else. He hoped the honourable gentleman would not name a very early day, as he would wish to take time to inform himself perfectly on the subject of the establishment at New South Wales.

complimented sir S. Romilly for the great attention he had paid to these subjects, and the many important observations he had suggested to the consideration of the House. Agreeing as he did with him in most of the principles he laid down, he wished, however, to allude to the materials that now existed in this country. He thought that names should go but for little; and that a place might be built and called a penitentiary, which would not answer the purposes of one; and, on the other hand a floating prison, called a hulk, might really be called a penitentiary. He praised the regularity and industry of many of the con- victs whom he had happened to see, and could by no means disapprove of an establishment which brought convicts to that sort of regularity and industry. He did not know but that the establishment of New South Wales might also act as a penitentiary. If a young lad was sent there for picking pockets, he might be reformed of that crime, by living in a country where there were no pockets to pick. (A laugh.) There was an absolute impossibility of committing in Botany Bay many of those crimes which were severely punished in this country.

admitted that, under the care of Mr. Graham, the hulks were brought to uncommon order and usefulness. But still the penitentiary system was superior to any other that had been devised. The single cause which had left that admirable system still a dead letter, was the difficulty of finding men who would let their ground for the buildings. As to the settlements in New South Wales, the whole had been conducted with an utter neglect of the natural provisions which were most important for a colony. Morals, the great cement of society, were thrown under foot; the government was corrupt, the subjects licentious. For twenty years there was no church in the capital city. But last year a governor was appointed by lord Castlereagh, from whose character the best results might be expected. The penitentiary system was the work of some of the wisest and best of men; of Judge Blackstone, Mr. Howard, and other distinguished persons: and it afforded the fairest hope of reformation among the lower ranks of the people. As for the jail of Newgate, it was a disgrace to the city of London. He was only anxious that some gentleman, with better opportunities than himself, should take up the subject, and he would give all his support to the inquiry into its abuses.

said, that there could be little doubt as to what sort of moral discipline might be reasonably expected from a mere colony of thieves. If the necessary mixture could not be had, it was proposed that penitentiary houses should be established. They had been established. There were numerous penitentiary houses throughout the country. If the error was solely in the management, how were they sure that the erection of new penitentiary houses would obviate such an objection? He, however, did not object altogether to the principle; but if such houses were established upon the plans proposed, he should be very jealous as to the manner in which the religious instruction was inculcated; it might be so done as to generate a sort of mischievous fanaticism superinducing hypocrisy upon their original depravity. This, however, would be a subject for after consideration.

would mention on the subject some of those circumstances which had struck him on a similar inquiry in Ireland. For want of transports, the convicts were frequently kept in prison for five or six years. It had been declared by the judges, that those years formed no part of the time of their exile. This induced the benevolent mind of the lord lieutenant to examine into so crying an injustice. An old law was found, which allowed the exile to be transmuted for an equal period in confinement. There were discovered sixty females, in cells of 12 feet square, 10 in each cell. Those women were put into penitentiaries; they became industrious, as they felt the enjoyment of light and air, and food; as they felt the pleasure of honest industry, they grew diligent and honest; work could scarcely be supplied to them sufficient for their new activity, and at the return of every week, there was an additional evidence of the signal power which encouragement and care had in reforming the most abandoned, and cheering the most unhappy.

, after a few observations on what had occurred in the debate, slated his intention of withdrawing the motion for the present, in conformity to the advice of some of his friends.—He then fixed it for the 25th of May.