said, that he had great pleasure in offering to the House a Petition from the borough he had the honour to represent, which formed a striking contrast with some, which, on account of the language in which they had been conveyed, had been rejected. The language of this, though firm as it ought to be, was respectful, and exhibited a good illustration both of the freedom of the constituent and the true character of the representative body, which, as its power was derived from the people, could never be better exercised than in relieving its grievances, and receiving with open doors its complaints, when properly and respectfully conveyed. The petition admitted the right of the House to commit, not only its own members, bat also any stranger, for any breach of privilege, where necessity required it; but that such necessity was confined to the case of obstruction merely. The same necessity, in the opinion of the petitioners, did not exist in the case of libel upon the House and its members; and therefore, in their opinion, libel ought not to be punished by the House, but considering that freedom of person and freedom of the press were so essential to political freedom, such complaints ought to be prosecuted at common law, and brought before a jury. Mr. Simeon said, he had the misfortune to differ with the petitioners in this distinction; after the maturest consideration, and looking into the records of the House, and after hearing those able arguments which had employed so much of its time. The House having no public legal organ of its own by which it could prosecute, must depend upon the crown for its permission to direct its Attorney General to prosecute. Pending prosecution, if commenced, the Attorney General might stop the prosecution by nolle prosequi at any time, which made the popular branch of the legislature dependent upon the crown, and might be attended sometimes with the danger of compromising part of the liberties of the people, or of the privileges of the House (which was the same thing) as a price of prosecution, or endanger a feeble and inefficacious prosecution by the crown, if it had any interest which was in opposition to the privilege contended for, as might frequently happen. Now, supposing the crown to lend its aid, and to do its duty effectually to the prosecution, the whole must turn upon the construction of the libel by the jury, which might be contrary to that of the House; in which case, the third branch of the legislature, consisting of 658 persons, comprehending as a body the great bulk of the property, talent, and education of the nation, and exercising practically and in effect the largest share of legislation, would be subjected to the judgment of twelve jurymen, whose opinions upon the construction of a written paper might leave the House of Commons under such contamination of character as to expose them to the contempt of the nation, and to the triumphs of the crown. No man had a more ardent love for the trial by jury than he had: considering it as the palladium and shield of the public liberty, and that the freedom of the press was equally essential. The only objection could be a fear of trusting the House of Commons with this power, which, however, it had exercised for near two centuries at least; but considering the trust reposed in the crown, in the exercise of its prerogative, and the trust reposed in the other House of Parliament, which was the ultimate and final court of judicature, binding finally by its decisions the property, the liberties, and lives of the subject; he could not think that the cool and judicious part of the nation would be afraid of trusting to their own elected representatives a power to commit for libel, which, as tending to vilify the Commons' branch of the legislature, undermined the true freedom of the public, and opened the way to all the bloodshed and miseries of anarchy and confusion. He concluded with moving, That the petition do lie on the table.

seconded the motion of his hon. colleague, and said he felt great satisfaction that the petition was so pure, and the language so respectful, as to defy even the most fastidious to raise any objection on that head. If there was any thing exceptionable in the prayer of the petition, another opportunity would occur for its discussion. For the present, he would only say, the meeting at which this petition was signed was called by the mayor; it was most numerously and respectably attended, and the decision was unanimous.

The motion passed, and the Petition was received and read; setting forth "That the petitioners consider it to be one of the undoubted rights of the people to lay before the House their grievances of every kind, and that this right in no wise ceaseth, or is diminished, when the cause of complaint originates within the walls of the House; and that the petitioners have witnessed, with great concern, the commitment of Mr. John Gale Jones to New-gate, and of sir Francis Burdett, baronet, to the Tower, for alledged libels, without any examination of evidence upon oath, and without any trial by jury: far be it from the petitioners to wish to disarm the House of any privilege that serves to maintain its dignity, independence, and just preponderance; but the petitioners have been taught, and believe, that the privileges of the House are not of higher value than the prerogatives of the crown, and that both the one and the other were given solely for the benefit of the people, the ultimate end and object of all good and rational government; and that the two greatest benefits that Englishmen enjoy as a free people are the liberty of person and the liberty of the press: the right of public discussion is the strongest barrier against every species of tyranny and oppression, and if at any time this right be abused for purposes of libel or sedition, these offences are cognizable in the courts of law:—Summary commitments in execution by way of punishment for libel, are considered by the petitioners as an encroachment on the trial by jury, injurious to the liberty of the subject, and the liberty of the press; and that the power of commitment may be necessary for the protection of the House in cases where obstruction is actually given or menaced; but the petitioners are not aware that any such obstruction made the exercise of that power necessary in the cases of Mr. John Gale Jones and sir F. Burdett, or that any mischief or inconvenience was likely to have ensued if their cases had been left to be decided in the ordinary course of law; and therefore praying, that the House will discharge Mr. John Gale Jones and sir F. Burdett from their confinement."—Ordered to lie on the table.

then rose and said that he held in his hand another Petition, which he begged leave to offer to the House. It was voted at the same meeting, and transmitted al the same time with the petition just received, and prayed for a Reform in the representation of the united kingdom in the Commons House of parliament. He moved that the petition be now received.

seconded the motion; but begged leave at the same time to observe, that although the requisition to the mayor for convening the meeting at which the petitions were voted, had been signed by a number of respectable persons who were voters, yet the meeting consisted of the inhabitants at large, whether voters or not, who were very numerous; so that the voice and opinion of the real electors might be completely drowned by the voice of those who had not the elective franchise, which might mislead the House. There was nothing to guide the House but the names subscribed to the petition, and here there were only twelve names subscribed, though he did not doubt but that there was a numerous meeting, of different descriptions, and many other voters amongst them. Those who had signed were very respectable in situation and character. He had noticed this distinction the rather, because those who were in general the secret engines of these meetings, were desirous, for their own purposes, of bringing in a multitude of persons, whether electors or not, to carry a favourite point; not considering, or else intentionally concealing from the real electors, that it was an act of political suicide on their part to suffer their opinions to be swallowed up by a shew of hands of every person present, of whom, perhaps, nine-tenths might not be voters. This was an intimidation of the real voters, who, perhaps, durst not express their, opinions upon popular subjects, urged by artful demagogues, for fear of the multitude that surrounded them. He admitted, and gloried in the admission, that the humblest peasant as well as the wealthiest gentleman should be the object of our care and attention; and that the property, the privileges, and life of the poorest were as much entitled to protection, as the richest: all he meant to argue was, that those who were the legal electors were the constitutional judges of the conduct of their members, and of the representative body which they had elected: and that their political opinions, for the sake of themselves and of their own independence, ought to be kept separate, in order to preserve their character and weight in the constitution; for they would speak with more weight when they were to speak the pure voice of the constituent body.

said, it was impossible to suffer this petition to pass without some answer to what had fallen from the hon. gentleman. Was it possible that any member of that House could say there was any man in this kingdom who had not as good a right to discuss and to sign a petition of that nature praying for a parliamentary reform, as any freeholder or burgher in the kingdom, however legally authorised? If any one argument could be stronger than another for parliamentary reform in the constitution of that House, it would be the denial of that right to discussion and petition in the persons who are not freeholders nor burghers in corporate towns. Would it be said that the inhabitants of those great and wealthy manufacturing towns, Manchester, Birmingham, and others he could name, had no right to discuss nor to petition parliament for reform, or for any other purpose in which their interests were concerned?

rose to explain. He had been much misunderstood by the hon. gent. He had particularly guarded against the construction which had been put upon his words; for he admitted in the fullest manner, and rejoiced in the right of every one, even the humblest and lowest subject of the realm, to petition the House upon any subject of grievance, whether he was an elector or not; but the opinion of the real electors upon the conduct of their representatives, or the House, for the sake of their own weight and consequence in the state, ought to be exercised as purely and distinctly as their franchise was exercised in giving their votes for electing a member of parliament; and that those who, for private purposes, called in persons who had no vote to mix in the deliberations of those who had a vote, destroyed or lessened the consequence of the real electors, and wished to govern by a mob. The separation did not deprive those who had no vote of the right to petition, or lessen it. With the greatest respect to the petitioners, he was bound by his constitutional duty as a member of that deliberative assembly, to suspend any opinion upon the important subjects to which it alluded, until after he had heard them debated. Saving, therefore, to himself such opinion as he was bound to form and act upon, after hearing all the arguments that could be urged upon any proposition that might be offered for the public good, he was happy to second the motion for receiving the petition offered by his honourable colleague.

The Petition, was accordingly brought up and read; setting forth, "That the petitioners have observed, of late years, and especially during the present administration, an entire difference of opinion between the people and their representatives in parliament upon almost every question of general feeling and national importance; and being sensible how much the stability of our constitution depends upon the restoration of mutual confidence, they sincerely lament that difference, and beg leave to draw the attention of the House to the grounds and causes of it; and that the petitioners believe that the chief grounds and causes of this difference will be found in the very defective mode of representation which prevails at present, in the number of placemen and pensioners that have seats in the House, and in the duration of parliaments; and that it is well known to the House, that many boroughs returning members to Parliament are utterly decayed and become the property of individuals, and are now the subject, like any other property, of barter and exchange; by this means the people find themselves excluded from the share which they ought to have in elections; and a body of men have been introduced into Parliament that are an anomaly in the constitution, being neither called by the king, nor elected by the people; under such a state of things, the petitioners think that no exaggeration which was said in the House by a late distinguished member, "that no honest man can long remain minister of the country;" the petitioners lament extremely, that, in the course of last session, two of his Majesty's ministers were charged with being concerned in the disgraceful traffic in boroughs, and that this practice, although reprobated by the learned and upright Speaker of the House with becoming zeal and indignation, was justified as being as notorious as the Sun at noon day; and that another ground of the constant and growing difference between the House and the people is the number of placemen and pensioners that are permitted to have seats in it, by which the influence of ministers is increased beyond controul:—Upon any other supposition the petitioners cannot conceive it possible that his Majesty's present incapable and arbitrary ministers should be still permitted to carry on the government of the country, after having wasted our resources in fruitless expeditious, and having shewn no vigour but in support of antiquated prejudices, and in attacks upon the liberties of the subject; and that, finally, the bold innovation of septennial for triennial parliaments has not been found to produce the salutary effects mentioned in the preamble of the statute passed in the first year of the reign of king George the First, but has certainly tended to relax the tie, and to set at a wider interval the connection between constituent and representative, so that the same is hardly felt and acknowledged; and that these are the chief grounds and causes of the unhappy difference in opinion and feeling that prevails between the House and the people; and therefore praying, that the House will take into timely and serious consideration the present state of the representation, and will adopt such measures of Reform as may be sufficient to restore to the House the confidence of the people, which is its truest dignity, and to make the House in practice and effect what it is constitutionally, the organ of the sense of its constituents."—Ordered to lie upon the table.

rose to bring forward his promised motion, feeling that the thinness of the House was no reason why he should postpone it. His purpose was to obtain certain papers, the production of which he conceived to be necessary; but he declared, that any anxiety he felt for their production, proceeded more from a consideration for the illustrious personage to whom they referred, and from a solicitude for the fairness and character of that House, than from any effect or weight which they were likely to have upon the statement which he was ultimately to make upon this subject. It was not his wish to engage the House in any military discussion, nor to interfere with the proper authority of any military tribunal. With this view he had on the outset narrowed the question to the mere enforcement of military law. He begged therefore to remind the House, that his objection was solely to enforce the execution of the regular established law of the army, and not to legislate for the army. It was much to be regretted, that in the course of the discussion which had taken place upon the admission of captain Foskett's petition, an hon. officer of high rank, (general Craufurd,) had thought proper to throw out some reflections upon the conduct and character of the petitioner, which made it necessary to call for certain documents, in order to prove that those reflections were unfounded. Those papers were several memorials from captain Foskett to the commander in chief and to the adjutant general, together with the replies from these officers, and also from the duke of Cumberland. Copies of all these papers were already in his hands; and upon the opinion of some most respectable officers, whom he had consulted, he was authorised to state that they fully sustained the charge advanced by captain Foskett. But he wished to have them officially laid before the House. If this proposition was objected to, what was the inference? Can gentlemen be unwilling to publish the statement of the duke of Cumberland in his own defence against the charge of captain Foskett? Would these gentlemen have it supposed that a prince's defence of himself was good for nothing, or unfit to meet the light? If it were his object to criminate that illustrious personage, he could not require a greater concession than the withholding such papers would imply. But he had no such object. The only use he meant to make of the papers he alluded to, would be of a defensive nature, for the vindication of captain Foskett; but they should not in any degree tend to induce him to vary the motion he had originally proposed to bring before the House. The hon. member concluded with moving for official copies of the documents he had mentioned, which had passed from the 14th of May, 1806, to the 12th of Feb. 1810.

objected to the motion, because he did not think that any fair ground for the production of the documents referred to had been stated. The main object of the petitioner was to fix upon the commander in chief the direct breach of the law. But it is were meant to ground that charge upon the refusal of promotion; and that the offices were to be ransacked for the production of papers to make out such a charge, he submitted to the serious consideration of the House, that admission of such a precedent must tend to interfere with the whole system by which the army has been so long and so advantageously governed. This motion confessedly arose out of the incidental observation, of an individual in the course of a former debate, and was that a ground for calling for papers, which, according to the confession of the mover, were irrelevant to the ultimate object? The complaint against the commander in chief for the non-execution of an article of war, was the professed end of the petition. But how did the case stand? The petitioner made various complaints. He first stated that an attempt was made to promote a junior officer, but that that attempt was not carried into effect in consequence of the interposition of the commander in chief; next the petitioner complains that he was not allowed leave of absence when required. But was it not surprising, that an officer who had been 14 years in the army, should make that a ground of complaint, or was the idea to be sanctioned, that that which was merely matter of courtesy, should be claimed as a matter of right? Was it possible that any gentleman acquainted with the conduct of the army, or competent to judge of the principles upon which it ought to be governed, would plead for the propriety of interfering with the discretion of any military commander, upon a question of this nature? The next ground of the petitioner's complaint was, that he was left at home, when his regiment was sent to Spain. But was it not according to the established practice of the army upon such an occasion to commit the depôt for recruits at home to the care of some old and experienced officer, who was, of course, to be selected by the colonel? Of this appointment, however, captain Foskett complained, and in consequence another officer was appointed in his place and he was to have gone to Spain, if the regiment had not been ordered home. Thus then it appeared, that every complaint put forth by the petitioner had been redressed, save that only which related to the conduct of the commander in chief, particularly in the promotion of another officer, to which promotion the papers moved for could have no reference. With that promotion, however, he presumed the House would ever be cautious of meddling, for it rested upon a principle essential to the encouragement of merit, namely, that of promoting merit wherever it was to be found, even though it was not recommended by seniority of standing in the army. He trusted, indeed, that the House would pause before it attempted to interfere with the allowed exercise of the commander in chief's discretion upon such a subject. For it could never be deemed discreet, or at all admissible, that that House should be made the tribunal of appeal for any officer who thought himself entitled to promotion, or that complaints should be encouraged against that authority in which, according to the long-established practice of the army, the right of disposing of such promotion was vested.

, though he could not concur in the sophistical arguments resorted to by the right hon. gent. who last spoke, yet concurred with him in the justness of one of the conclusions drawn from them, that the House ought not to consent to the production of the papers moved for by his hon. friend. When the question for bringing up the petition was debated as it had been, he left the House under a conviction that if the House would permit its being brought up, they would not agree to its lying upon the table; in that expectation, however, he was disappointed, and he must say, that the House in allowing a petition of that nature to lie upon the table, had taken a step inconsistent with the strict line of their duty. He thought it altogether a new doctrine that this House was bound to interfere in questions of military government between the army and the executive: he warned the House to beware of any proceeding that could possibly admit the construction of any attempt on their part to wrest from the executive that power, which, constitutionally and properly belongs to it; nothing would tend more effectually to relax that discipline that was so essential to the army, as the wresting from commanders in chief all discretion whatever: however beautiful the theory, that promotion should be regulated by seniority, nothing would be found more ill-judged in practice than a strict and unqualified adherence to such a rule. Even admitting the alleged breach of the articles of war; still, he contended, that that was no ground for that House assuming to itself the right of judging and determining upon such a charge; as the party aggrieved had another quarter to apply to for remedy and redress. With respect to the duke of Cumberland, he thought him placed in a situation unprecedentedly severe, in consequence of the House agreeing to receive the petition in question, because there remained upon their journals a record of grievances imputed to his royal highness, which the House refusing to go further into, must leave uncontradicted on their journals. He should vote against the motion.

thought that now the House had received the petition, they, were bound in common justice to the petitioner, to give him every opportunity to substantiate the allegations contained in his petition.

contended, that dangerous effects were to be apprehended from the interposition of the House in a question of the nature of that before them. With respect to the papers moved for they were acknowledged to be not neces- sary to make out the case of the petitioner. Here then the chief, if not the only reason for their production, had been given up; and it would be found, that the more the proceedings in this business assumed a detailed form, the more inconvenient and objectionable they would be. This, however, he would say, that the defence of the duke of Cumberland could be rested, without any apprehension of the result, upon an ample admission of the facts themselves. Here the gallant officer went into a detail of the grievances alledged to have been suffered by captain Foskett, and proceeded to argue, that, upon the petitioner's own shewing, they were nugatory and groundless. With respect to the charge of obstructing the promotion of captain Foskett, he denied, in the first instance, that seniority of standing invariably gave right of promotion; it gave a claim, the strength of which, however, might be either confirmed or destroyed by the merits of the individual, of those merits the commanding officer of the regiment was to judge. This discretion could not be withheld without doing incalculable mischief to the army; this then brought the question to the justice of captain Foskett's military pretensions. Col. Seymour had given his royal highness the duke of Cumberland his opinion of those pretensions, and this opinion was not'a favourable one; captain Foskett had not discovered much knowledge of his profession in the discipline and conduct of his troops. He was not considered as a good cavalry officer. Col. Grant, than whom no man was a better or more candid judge, had declared that capt. Foskett's troop was in so bad a state of discipline, that it would be necessary to break it up: this was the opinion of col. Grant, one of the best field officers in England, or perhaps in Europe: There were upon the same ground objections to the propriety of letting capt. Foskett go out to Spain. Another serious ground of complaint was, the duel; the circumstances of which he deemed atrocious. The eldest captain in the regiment (captain Foskett) went out as a second to a junior officer, a boy of 19 years of age in a duel, between him and another boy about 17, the cornet and lieutenant; they fire three shots each, and then after having done so without effect, an agreement is made that they should advance towards each other a pace each shot; in the next fire, lieut. Wallace (he believed) was in the act of setting a hair trigger, when his pistol went off, and this was insisted upon as a shot, and he was obliged to stand as a log of wood to be fired at with hair triggers in a duel! Now, he (gen. Craufurd) thought, that the second who permitted the setting of hair triggers in a duel, deserved to be hanged upon the spot. And yet the man who had seconded in that duel complained of being barred of promotion. Had such a thing happened in his regiment, he would have brought the officer to a court martial, and have rejoiced at his been cashiered for the same offence. With respect to the charge of blasting the future prospects of capt. Foskett, he denied that that could have been the intention or the wish of either the commander in chief or the duke of Cumberland, as capt. Foskett had been offered a majority in another regiment. As to the exchange, where such a circumstance happened between two officers of different regiments with the approbation of their commanding officers, the juniors in each had no ground for Complaint, for they remained as they were. He justified the conduct of the commander in chief in not laying the memorial before the King; first, because he had no grievances to state, and next, that if he had, he had also a discretion to judge of the necessity of laying them before his Majesty. Another fact he was anxious to state was this, that the commander in chief had offered captain Foskett a majority in a regiment then serving in Portugal, his answer was, that he sought for redress and not for promotion: this was the answer of a man complaining of his having been debarred from the service of his King and country, and professing his earnest anxiety for such service. He did not believe that there was another officer in the army who would have given such an answer to such an offer. He concluded with expressing his conviction, that capt. Foskett had been treated by the duke and the commander in chief with unprecedented lenity, forbearance, and moderation.

thought the speech of the gallant officer as far as it went rather an argument for the production of the papers than against it. He, however, agreed, that the House could not be too cautious in interfering in cases of that kind. He at the same time thought, that the case of capt. Foskett was one of very considerable hardship, and one that reflected any thing but honour on the illustrious personage concerned; nor had that hardship been lessened by the sort of speech that bad been delivered by the gallant officer. (Hear!) Individual grievances, however, must fall before the paramount plea of the public interests. If they heard this complaint, they would have 50 similar ones preferred to them, and they should get another House of Commons to do the business of the country, while they would be engrossed in military inquisitions; besides, he thought, the practice would have the effect, by frequent interference, of considerably relaxing the discipline of the army, by holding out inducements to discontent; for these reasons he must, with great reluctance, vote against the motion.

insisted, that the case of the petitioner was not a case of hardship, because nothing had happened which was not consistent with the rules and practice of the army. If the feelings of the royal person alluded to were to be consulted, he was sure that he would wish the papers to be produced; though, for himself, he could see no benefit that could result from their production. It had been asserted by an hon. member (sir F. Burdett) last session, that there had been a greater number of punishments in the 15th dragoons since the duke of Cumberland had the regiment than before. He had disbelieved it at the time, though not acquainted with the facts, but on inquiry since, he had found that the punishments were fewer since his royal highness has had the regiment than before.

thought it rather unfortunate that the House had entertained this question, because blame must be imputed to one or other of the parties. By the conduct observed towards capt. Foskett, it was not only the individual but every junior officer of the corps (men who must be taken to be unquestionably innocent and honourable), whose promotion was stopped. He agreed, however, with his friend behind him (Mr. Ward) that much inconvenience would result from entertaining a question of this kind. He did not, nevertheless, mean to say, that no case of this nature should be brought before the House. This gentleman complained not of any one act, but of a series of injuries, any one of which might not amount to a serious injury per se, but all of which having successively happened, shewed the animus with which capt. Foskett had been treated. He wished to know how, if no court martial should be granted to him, nor the commander in chief make a report to his Majesty, any officer of inferior rank could have his injuries redressed?

observed, that as capt. Foskett had been offered promotion in another regiment, no injury had been sustained by him, and consequently the charges against his royal highness were unfounded.

observed, in reply to the assertion, that since the duke of Cumberland had the command of the 15th regiment, the infliction of punishment had considerably diminished, that he had also made his inquiry, and the result was, that there was no such diminution of punishments, but, on the contrary, they had increased, and, until very lately, the practice of picquetting, a practice wholly discontinued in the service, was carried into effect in that regiment. The hon. general (Craufurd) had thought proper, in vindicating the conduct of the duke of Cumberland, to indulge in the strongest aspersions against capt. Foskett. He charged that officer with conduct, which not alone affected his character as an officer, and as a man of sense, but as a gentleman. The gallant general said, that capt. Foskett had no grievance to complain of; that his own actions were the causes of the impediments to his promotion; and that in respect to the promotion that was denied him, and his detention at home when his regiment were in Spain, they were both attributable—the first to his being reported a bad officer, who had been guilty of atrocious conduct; and the last to the ineffective state of his troop. After such aspersions cast upon that officer, would it not be an act of crying injustice to refuse the papers for which the hon. mover had called? If it was in the power of the gallant general to prove his statements, what objection could he have to the production of the whole of the evidence? But if the gallant general thought that papers should be refused, why, in God's name, did he enter so uncalled for, and unnecessarily, into an attack upon the character of capt. Foskett, at the very moment that he declared his intention of opposing that motion, which went to afford that officer the opportunity of proving the truth of those allegations of systematic oppression which he had brought against the royal duke. Suppose that gallant general had been assailed, unjustly assailed as it would be, for any part of his conduct when with the allied army, suppose that not only his pro- fessional Conduct was attacked, but that his private honour was impeached, with what feelings of indignation would he himself view any proceeding which went to deprive him of the opportunity of defence; which went to allow his enemies or their advocates to indulge in the most acrimonious aspersions on his character, at the same time that it denied to him the means of proving that the conduct of his accuser was the most malignant and reprehensible? The inconsistence of the gallant general's reasoning was most observable. Captain Foskett, he said, was an officer whose general conduct was not good, but who so managed as to keep within the circle which kept him safe from a court martial, and yet almost in the same breath he arraigned that very officer for his conduct on the duel; conduct for which the gallant general would have brought him to a court martial. Thus, according to such reasoning, capt. Foskett, though a bad officer, contrived to keep so within the line that he could not be brought to court martial, although he was guilty of this alleged atrocious conduct, for which, if in his regiment, the gallant general would have brought him to trial.—To the principle, that the House should not lightly or rashly enter into investigation of military concerns of this kind, he most readily subscribed, at the same time that he thought it their duty to redress grievances, where redress had been repeatedly refused in those quarters constituted to afford it. The hon. judge advocate had remarked that capt. Foskett had evinced no overstrained delicacy; without considering the propriety of that delicacy which might be termed overstrained, he would say, that that officer had shewn no want of delicacy, and from the length of time which he remained silent under his heart-breaking wrongs, he proved himself a man of considerable temper. When he heard the gallant general so philosophically talk of the moderation and tenderness with which capt. Foskett was treated, he was reminded of one of the most atrocious murders which disgraced the annals of human nature—it was that committed by Charles 12 on the gallant and patriotic col. Patcul. When that gallant man was leading to the stake to be broke alive on the wheel, he was told that his majesty had remitted a part of his torments: his exclamation in reply was—"Oh! what clemency!" So sould capt. Foskett exclaim, when his cha- racter was assaulted, his honour aspersed, and his reputation almost broken on the wheel, and even heard his oppressors or their advocates talk of the kindness and the tenderness with which he has been treated.

defended the conduct of the duke of Cumberland, and contended that capt. Foskett had suffered no injury, and that neither the duke of Cumberland nor the commander in chief had violated the I2th article or any article of war in his case.

thought that the matter of the petition related almost entirely to the commander in chief, and not to the duke of Cumberland, against whom the complaint was made, and whose name had been so frequently introduced in the debate. He could not avoid stating, that it appeared to him rather extraordinary, that this petition should have found its way into the different public papers, almost as soon as it was presented to the House.

opposed the motion, upon the ground that capt. Foskett had not taken the steps which he ought to have adopted for the attainment of redress.

said, that he was determined to defend the character of the gentleman, who had placed in his hand the subject of his complaint, and who depended upon his exertions for redress. It had been said, that many allegations introduced in the petition, were unnecessary and improper. He was not responsible for the allegations contained in the petition, but he wished that the House would allow him to go into evidence upon the subject. He denied the probability of the statements made by the gallant general respecting the duel in which capt. Foskett was concerned; and conceived that the gallant general ought to bring forward his authorities upon a subject of so important a nature, both to the Character of capt. Foskett, and to the party of whom he had complained, He concluded with observing, that if the papers were not produced, there existed no chance of a fair elucidation of the subject. If those papers were studiously suppressed, the consequence would be most prejudicial to the cause of the duke of Cumberland, instead of producing any possible service.

The House then divided, when there appeared, for the motion S. Against it 84 Majority 76.