moved the grant suspended on a former day, at the instance of Mr. Whitbread, for 1,034l. to Mr. Read, the Bow-street magistrate, for the expence of extra constables on the late occasion of sir F. Burdett's commitment to the Tower.

said the return made to the House of the particulars of this charge were by no means satisfactory. It appeared that the magistrates had been extremely dilatory in calling out the constables.

said, the reports were regularly made to him, and he had every reason to believe the special constables were all at their respective posts.

did not know what reports were made to the right hon. secretary, but he knew what reports were made to himself. He had been much fatigued, and went to bed. And about ten o'clock his servant came and told him the mob was breaking sir J. Anstruther's windows, so that it was evident there were no constables at all to prevent such proceedings, and when the House was now called upon to vote 1,034l. for special constables, he could not agree to it.

instanced the breaking of lord Castlereagh's windows by the mob a few minutes after; and opposed the mo- tion on the same ground as Mr. Whitbread.

said it was in many cases impossible to prevent the appearance of a mob very suddenly at some particular point, witness the various cases of election mobs. In Downing-street, that very evening, there was an appearance of the greatest tranquillity, but a very great mob appeared there in the course of five minutes. Wherever the mob might have collected together, they went in separate parties to sir J. Anstruther's, lord Wellesley's, and lord Castlereagh's, and did the mischief in a very few minutes. With respect to the present motion, he could not conceive there could be any objection to the propriety of it. When expence was incurred on such occasions it ought to be made good.

spoke shortly against the resolution.

said the right hon secretary had talked much of reports, but who made these reports? where did they come from? They came from police officers who were to have the disposal of this money. The right hon. secretary had also said he was at his post. He (Mr. W.) could not conceive where (hat post might be; for, according to the account given by the serjeant of that House, in the course of the many times he went to the right hon. gent.'s office, he found Mr. Beckett at his post, but never could set eye on the right hon. gent. after he quitted that House.

said it was easy to argue retrospectively, but he firmly believed if the hon. gentlemen who opposed the motion had been in the situation of ministers, they would have acted in the same way as ministers had done.

The motion was then agreed to.

presented a Petition from the gentlemen, clergy, freeholders, householders, and other inhabitants of the county of Berks, in full county assembled at Reading the 5th day of June 1810, by the appointment of the sheriff, setting forth, "That the Petitioners beg leave, at this important crisis, most respectfully to direct the attention of the House to a Petition presented to them on the 6th of May 1793, in which, among other allegations, it was asserted, and offered to be proved, that the House of Commons did not fully and fairly represent the people of England; that the elective franchise was so partially distributed, that a majority of the House was elected by only the 170th part of the male population of England paying taxes; that 84 individuals did, by their own immediate authority, send 157 of the hon. members to parliament; that, in addition to these 157, 150 more were returned to the hon. House, not by the collective, voice of those whom they appear to represent, but by the recommendation of 70 powerful individuals, by which means 154 patrons return a decided majority of the House; and that this partial distribution of the elective franchise commits the choice of representatives to select bodies of men, of such limited numbers, as renders them an easy prey to the artful, or a ready purchase to the wealthy; and that the Petitioners deeply lament that the evils pointed out in the Petition above-mentioned still continue to exist; and to this cause of unequal representation the Petitioners are convinced many bad effects are to be attributed, and, among others, beg leave to point out the notorious buying and selling of seats in the House; and that the Petitioners beg leave to call the attention of the House to a Resolution on their Journals, passed in the year 1779, in the words following: 'That it is highly criminal for any minister or ministers, or any servant of the crown in Great Britain, directly or indirectly, to make use of the power of his office, in order to influence the election of members of parliament, and that an attempt to exercise that influence is an attack upon the dignity, the honour and the independence of parliament, an infringement of the rights and liberties of the people, and an attempt to sap the basis of our free and happy constitution;' and compare the said Resolution with the refusal of the House to enquire into the conduct of lord Castlereagh and Mr. Perceval (then two of his Majesty's ministers) when distinctly charged with the sale of a seat in the House, evidence of which was offered at the bar by a member of the House; and the avowal in the House 'that such practices were as notorious as the sun at noon day,' practices, at the bare mention of which the Speaker of the House declared that our ancestors would have startled with indignation; and that the Petitioners further beg leave to call the attention of the House to the Report, of one of their committees, wherein it is stated that 78 placemen and pen- sioners, who have seats in the House, receive 178,994l out of the taxes raised upon the people, and of course out of the money, to watch over the expenditure of which they are appointed, which the Petitioners have reason to think may have influenced, in some late instances, the votes of the House; and particularly in the approbation given to the conduct of ministers in the late unfortunate and ill-conducted Expedition to the Scheldt, where the flower of our troops, without the opportunity of any exploit worthy of them, was permitted for months to perish by disease by the pestilential air of Walcheren, where life was extinguished like a candle in a vault, and where the blood and treasure of the nation were lavishly uselessly and scandalously wasted, which vote of approbation has excited universal disgust; and that the Petitioners beg leave moreover to call the attention of the House to the present duration of parliaments, and to the circumstances which made them septennial instead of triennial, as enacted by 6th William and Mary, and which law remained in force during the most glorious period of our history; and therefore praying, that the House will take such measures as to them shall seem meet, to correct the present partial distribution of the elective franchise, to regulate the right of voting upon an uniform and equitable principle, to limit the number of placemen and pensioners who shall have seats in the House, and, finally, to shorten the duration of parliaments, and by removing the causes of that confusion, litigation and expence with which they are at this day conducted, to render frequent and new elections, what our ancestors at the Revolution asserted them to be, the means of a happy union and good agreement between the King and people."

Ordered, that the said Petition do lie upon the table.

Mr. C. Dundas next presented another Petition from the same parties, setting forth, "That the Petitioners beg leave to express their sincere regret and great alarm at the injury suffered by the people in the punishment inflicted on Mr. John Gale Jones and sir Francis Burdett, bart. without that trial by jury which by the Great Charter is declared to be the law of the land, and which is the principal bulwark of our liberties, and which we from our infancy have been taught to consider as our birthright, and to be so firmly established as to defy every encroachment on our persons or property by the assumption of any arbitrary power whatever, and in furtherance of this power the Petitioners have witnessed the house of an Englishman, formerly esteemed his castle, broken open; (an act of which, as declared by the King's attorney general, there was no express legal authority to support the exercise;) and one of the representatives of the people taken there from by a military force (unnecessarily and unprecedentedly called forth) and shut up in prison during pleasure, one of the consequences arising wherefrom has been the shedding of the blood of innocent and unoffending persons, and the Petitioners are in nowise desirous of seeing the House, deprived of those privileges which are necessary to maintain its dignity and independence; but on the contrary, would heartily support any measure requisite for that purpose; but they beg leave to state, that they conceive that the exercise of the power now mentioned cannot in any degree contribute to the maintenance of that dignity and independence, and that those ends would be more fully secured by prosecutions in the courts of law: and the Petitioners beg leave to state, that the greatest supporters of our free and glorious constitution are the liberty of person and the liberty of the press; if at any time the latter be abused for the purposes of libel, such offences are always cognizable by those tribunals which are established to administer the laws of the land; but they humbly conceive that an arbitrary imprisonment of the subjects of this realm during pleasure for an alledged libel, not proved to be such, is an infringement of both the liberty of the press and of the person; and the Petitioners are not aware that any obstructions to the proceedings of the House, made the exercise of the power of summary commitment necessary in the cases of Mr. Gale Jones and sir Francis Burdett, or that any 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. Gale Jones and sir Francis Burdett from their confinement, and expunge the Resolutions for their commitment from the Journals of the House."

said he was sorry to oppose this petition, but he thought it contained a statement which the House ought not to consider admissible. It was a distinct imputation on the House, which he thought it ought not to submit to.

could scarcely command words to express the astonishment he felt at the course adopted by the right hon. gent. in recommending to the House to refuse to receive a petition, not one word of which was, as it appeared to him, either disrespectful or indecorous. What did the averment alluded to by the right hon. gent. amount to, but a statement on the part of the petitioners that the House of Commons was wrong? Was that a ground for not receiving their petition? Did the House of Commons then claim to be infallible? Was it the case that that House was never in the wrong in any of its proceedings, and that consequently it was not to suffer a petition to be presented, complaining of any of them? Suppose, in the course of next session, they were to receive petitions complaining of a tax, and asserting that the parliament was wrong in imposing it, was such a statement to be a ground for not receiving it? And yet the objection of the right hon. gent. would go to that extent. How, indeed, were petitioners to word their petitions complaining of grievances, unless by directly stating them? Were they to say that the House was right, when they meant it was wrong? Were they to state that the House was all lenience, all moderation, all generosity and forbearance, when they intended to bring under its consideration those of its acts which they had to complain of as grievances? Were they to state that no improper influence was exerted within the walls of that House, no votes procured, nor any injury done to the people, and therefore pray the House to rescind its resolutions? If petitions were not to resort to such courtly phraseology, in what more decorous language could they represent their grievances, than that contained in the petition under consideration?—If the House were to reject this petition, it would be the climax of absurd and unconstitutional conduct respecting petitions, and would amount to a declaration that the people should not petition at all. Here he should beg leave to remind the House of the situation in which it stood as to petitions, and to call the attention of gentlemen to the calumny which had been littered against the city of London, when its first petition was presented. That petition was represented as a studied insult on the part of the petitioners; and yet the city of London afterwards proved, by pre- senting another which had been received, that no such object was in the contemplation of the petitioners. The same thing had been proved in the case of an individual, (major Cartwright) whose petition he had presented, and which had been rejected on the same ground of its being a studied insult. That individual, however, like the livery of London, which had been represented as composed of a rabble from Saffron-hill, presented another petition, leaving out the expressions excepted against; and that petition had also been received, confirming what he had previously been convinced of, that it had never been the intention of that individual to insult the House of Commons. After these petitions, came this petition from the freeholders of Berkshire, praying the House to revise their former vote. What was thus asked, but what they had done before after twenty years experience? The petitioners said that the House was wrong in the proceeding it had adopted, and proposed that it should be re-considered; and in this prayed for no more than the precedent in the case of the proceedings against Mr. Wilkes warranted them in expecting. He felt so strongly upon this subject, that notwithstanding the thinness of the House, he should take its sense upon this climax of folly and absurdity—the proposition for rejecting the petition.

could not conceive any language more decorous, moderate, or respectful, than the terms in which the petitioners stated the wrongs of which they complained. The House might think itself right; but yet the petitioners, if they thought the proceedings of the House wrong, had a right to petition that they should be rescinded. That House should ever bear in mind, that for many successive years, petitions had been presented, complaining of the proceedings against Mr. Wilkes, which had been uniformly rejected; yet these proceedings were at last expunged from the journals, which proved the petitioners, whose prayers had been so often rejected, to be right. This was enough to shew that the House was not infallible in its votes.

agreed, that, if this petition was drawn up in respectful language, it ought to be received. But he was at a loss to know by what construction it could be supposed to be so drawn up; for he could not conceive any language more disrespectful or insulting to that House, than a petition charging its proceedings as an injury to the people. He would admit that any branch of their constituents had a right to state their opinions on their proceedings, though not to represent them as an injury to the people. He could not imagine any more poignant insult to the House than such a petition. On that ground, and on that solely, he should oppose the receiving the petition. But he could not avoid contrasting the conduct of the hon. gentlemen opposite, in supporting this petition, with their conduct in rejecting yesterday unanimously the petition of the Gloucestershire electors, who complained that a person sat in that House as their representative who had no legal right to such seat.

was surprised at the tone and substance of the right hon. gent.'s observations. The question was not now whether by receiving this petition, they were to submit to receive all manner of petitions, but whether by rejecting the present petition they were to tell the electors of Berkshire and the country, that the right of petition was at an end. No member had denied that this petition was the petition of an authorized meeting, constitutionally convened by their legal magistrate. And was the House to refuse to receive it, because the petitioners complained that the proceedings of that House were an injury to the people? Was it to be asserted, that, whenever petitioners differed from that House, as to any thing that may have passed there, they were not to be heard by their petition? Though the House might be right, still, if the electors of Berkshire thought otherwise, they had a right to say so by petition. But it would be inconsistent in the House to reject this petition, after having received the preceding petition, because that set out with a charge that they were not the House of Commons. The former went to the whole constitution of the House: the latter only a part of its proceedings. There was no analogy between this petition and the one which had been rejected on the previous evening. But the right hon. secretary, who seemed a kind of depository of the dignity of the House, considered this petition from the landed gentry of Berkshire, as a poignant insult to the House. He trusted, however, that the House would not treat the people with such cruelty, as to reject a petition drawn up in such moderate language, and so respectfully presented.

considered this as a most serious question. In the present situation of that House and the country, it would be an awful, an alarming event, if the House were to prove itself obviously wrong by rejecting so respectable and moderate a petition. It appeared that his Majesty's ministers had determined to make a stand against receiving any petitions but such as they should themselves approve of (hear! hear!) He should be glad to know how, if the petitioners were to complain of a wrong, they could disguise their object so as not to incur the opposition of the right hon. gentlemen opposite? It seemed that these right hon. gentlemen, intoxicated with their success in rejecting the petitions of the people, yet unwilling to break with the House of Commons and still desirous to approach it respectfully, were determined to shut the doors of that House against the complaints of the people. The right hon. secretary had condescended to assert, that because they had last night rejected a petition which he wished to receive, they should, in consistency, now not receive a petition which he wished to reject. If the right hon. gent. had looked round him on his coming in from the lobby, he would have perceived that a great number of gentlemen who were in the habit of voting with him on great political questions, voted against him last night. But there was no analogy whatever between the two petitions. The petition of the former evening had been rejected because no proof whatever had been offered in support of the allegations of the petition. They could not consider the statement of an hon. member who went out to the lobby to consult counsel there, when the petitioners claimed not to be heard by counsel, as any undertaking to prove these allegations. It was expressly on the ground that no such proof was offered that the petition had been rejected. But the right hon. gent. should have spoken last night upon the subject, instead of deferring his observations till to-day. The vote he (sir Samuel) had given on that occasion, he had given conscientiously and upon mature deliberation; and he would undertake to say, as conscientiously as any vote that right hon. gent. had ever given. He did not think the right hon. gent. warranted, therefore, in making matter of reproach to him, amongst the majority, for having voted in that manner. If there was a disposition on the part of the right hon. gentlemen opposite to re- ject this petition, he should think it better to adopt the course followed with respect to former petitions, and adjourn the debate for 24 hours.

believed that the petition had been presented for the mere purpose of insulting the House, and should oppose laying on the table a strong invective against the proceedings of the House, in whatever way it might be worded. The petitioners had no more interest in the prayer of their petition than the whole people of England. He might be disposed to overlook strong language where petitioners had a private interest. But when the question was argued in so high a tone, as if it was intended to overthrow the right to petition, he must say that gentlemen misunderstood the proceeding of laying a petition on the table, which was, that some future proceeding was to take place upon it. He believed that in the best times and most boasted, a petition so worded as this, so far from being received, would be considered a direct contempt. His hon. and learned friend could not forget the case of Mrs. Crowe, committed for contempt by lord Erskine, on the motion of his learned friend, and without any reference to Magna Charta, now so much talked of. Was the House of Commons not to have a power which belonged to every petty court of record in the country? He could not submit to the charge that innocent blood had been shed in consequence of the proceedings of that House; he believed it was the consequence of the violent, unconstitutional, and, he must say, seditious resistance to the legal authority of the House of Commons. When they considered the bad spirit that was abroad, and so much the worse for having been taken up by respectable meetings, it became that House to resist it. He was sorry for this spirit, but would trust to the good sense of the people of England. He should not, however, wilfully submit to the degradation of parliament.

felt alarmed lest this petition should be rejected, because if it should, no other petition could ever be received. The objection of the right hon. gentlemen would avail against all petitions. What could be the subject of petition but the complaint of injury? If the people and that House were agreed, there could be no foundation for a petition. A short time since, there were a number of Scotch petitions, complaining of the in- jury the distillery bill before the House would do the petitioners; and yet no one of them was rejected on the ground of such complaint; but the learned gent. (Mr. Stephen) objected to the substance of the petition. He was glad that the learned gent. had let out the secret: he was rejoiced, if such was the intention, to be apprised that the doors of that House were to be closed against the legitimate complaints of the people. For his part, he thought highly of the privileges of that House, and that they actually were essential to, and belonged to it; and he lamented as much as any man that a petition such as that under consideration should have been presented against them. The hon. and learned gent, stated, that the petitioners had no more right than the people at large in the prayer of their petition. But what was the right of petitioning? what was it that our ancestors fought and bled for? The doctrine of the learned gent. would go the length of establishing, that no man had a right to petition, but the man who had an interest in the object of the petition. He was by no means surprised at the conduct of the right hon. gentlemen opposite on this occasion, because on the subject of petitions, they appeared to be influenced by the most extravagant infatuation. He hoped that they had at length arrived at the end of these insults to the people by the rejection of their petitions.

, if he thought the petition disrespectful, should vote against it; but so far from thinking so, he was convinced of the contrary. He voted against a former petition, because he considered it a studied insult; but he observed, this contained a studied intention not to offend. It was impossible to conceive how the allegations of the petition could be expressed in more decorous terms. He was sorry to find that the right hon. secretary had made the question of last night a party-question. But in his conscience he believed, that if the right hon. gent. could lead the House to reject this petition, he would lead it to a vote which must be expunged.

was of opinion that the petition ought to be rejected, because it charged that House with the highest political crime, the assumption of arbitrary power. As the petition was worded it appeared not intended to obtain redress; its object was libel.

having presented the petition felt it necessary to state, that the meeting from which the petition was presented, was one of the most numerous and respectable that had ever been convened in the county. He excused the learned gent. opposite for what be had said of that meeting, from his ignorance of the situation, the rank and the consequence of the persons assembled. When he mentioned the name of sir John Throgmorton, the House would be sensible that he was as high in rank, in honour, in talents, and in personal respectability, as any gentleman in or out of that House. The question now was, whether the representatives were to draw up their petitions for the people.

, as he understood the petition to charge the proceedings of that House, as having been the cause of the shedding of innocent blood, he was astonished that any gentleman could consider it inoffensive. All the blood that was shed was the consequence of the idle and boyish mutiny of the member in the Tower.

regretted that any expression should have been introduced into the petition, which could give rise to a supposition that the petitioners charged upon the proceedings of that House the innocent blood shed. He must say that the military behaved with exemplary moderation.

would have been disposed to lean to receiving the petitions from the people; but since be had heard the petition under consideration read, he was sorry to say that his opinion of it was, that it was intended as an insult to the House. Entertaining this opinion, therefore, he did not think it ought to be suffered to be on the table. The rejection of the petition besides, would not be any injury to the petitioners, because they might next day present another petition for the same object, but couched in decent and respectful language. Whilst he considered it the undoubted right of the subject to petition, he must contend that it was consonant to the practice of the best times, that such petitions as were presented to that House or to the Sovereign, should be drawn up with delicacy, and not made the vehicle of insult and opprobrium. If that opinion of his was correct, and contained the true rule to judge by, the question really was, what was it that the petition stated? Here he must express his regret for the mistaken notion which had gone abroad relative to the privileges of that House, and which had led to the results they had lately wit- nessed. It appeared to him that all knowledge of the laws, or of the constitution of the country, had vanished from the minds of a great part, though not the greater part, of the people of this country. Was it at the present day that they should have to debate concerning the privileges of parliament? Were they yet to learn that these privileges were a part of the common law of the land? Could it be doubted that it was a part of the privileges of that House to commit for contempt? The time he trusted, was not so far distant when that question would be decided by the best authority that could determine it, and when every doubt upon this important subject would be set at rest for ever. With reference to all that had occurred on this point, he happened to have had a considerable share, in having recommended to the House the commitment of Gale Jones. On the best consideration which he had since been able to bestow upon the subject he was conscientiously of opinion, that in the part he had taken he was right; and that in the course the House had adopted, it was justified according to the soundest principles of the constitution of parliament as understood in the very best periods of our history. Gentlemen would bear in mind that the question for the commitment of John Gale Jones was agreed to in a House not very thinly attended, nem. con. It had been said, and much insisted upon, that it was not prudent to take such a step, or to exercise the privilege upon such an occasion. To this all he had to say was, that it appeared to him a proper time for the House to make a stand, and put a stop to that flood of insult and abuse, which threatened, at no very distant period, to overthrow the authority and foundations of parliament. It might, then, be asked why he had not brought the question under the consideration of the House, until his own name was introduced, coupled with that of another member (Mr. Windham) now unfortunately no more, but whose loss would be ever deplored by all those who were friends to the privileges of the House and the constitutional liberties of the country, who were enemies to the phrenzied speculations, that had so much of late occupied the imaginations of wild theorists and innovators. It was not, however, without the concurrence of that eminent person, that he had taken the course that he had resorted to. He had consulted him, and had his sanction for every step he had taken. It would be to him a con- solation to the latest moment of his life, that though he differed on many points from that most distinguished statesman, he had the honour to have concurred with him upon all the great principles of the constitution, upon all the grand rules of order, and upon the unalterable necessity of maintaining the ancient existing establishment. He had no apology to offer for what he had done. He had but done his duty. If Mr. Gale Jones thought his committal illegal, why had he not applied for his habeas corpus? Why had not sir F. Burdett if he thought so?—why, because they were convinced the commitment was legal. If not, the day after the commitment, they might have had their habeas and been liberated. When gentlemen talked so much of the innocent blood that had been shed, and asked upon whom it should lie, he could have no hesitation in answering upon sir F. Burdett, on his head the blood will lie till the day of judgment. If it was necessary for him to justify his principles, it was impossible for any man to contend that it was necessary to the extent to which he had carried his resistance, and which alone had led to the shedding of blood. He considered, that however ignorant the petitioners might be of the constitution, yet to charge the House directly with an assumption of arbitrary power, with breaking open the house of an Englishman, and with being the occasion of the shedding of innocent blood, was an insult so marked, that it must have been intended as such.

was astonished at hearing an hon. and learned gent. (Mr. Stephen) speak so lightly of rejecting a petition presented on the part of so respectable a portion of the people. If he were to examine this petition minutely, he must say there was no charge on the House of Commons for causing the shedding of innocent blood, as there were entire sentences intervening between the complaint of the conduct of the House of Commons and the mention of that circumstance. When it had been stated that the meeting was attended by every thing that was most respectable in the county, it could not be supposed that it was their intention to insult the House.

said, that the friendship he long entertained for the hon. baronet (sir F. Burden), made it impossible for him not to advert to some expressions which had fallen from a right hon. gent. (Mr. Yorke). He had said that the blood of the innocent persons who had lost their lives, most rest to the day of judgment on the head of the hon. baronet. Now what was it that the hon. baronet had done? He had only maintained what he conceived to be the political rights of Englishmen. The hon. baronet denied that the House had legally the right to imprison the subjects of this country by their own authority; and being of that opinion, he would not yield a willing obedience to their warrant, but resolved to shut his door, and try whether the House of Commons would go the length of breaking into his house. He would not say whether his hon. friend was right or wrong in his opinion, but he was convinced that it was an opinion which he seriously and conscientiously entertained. He thought that bad motives ought not to be lightly imputed to any man; and if the right hon. gent. chose to say that the innocent blood which was spilt was on the head of sir F. Burdett, he would be fully as well satisfied in saying, that it was on the head of that right hon. gent. He concluded by moving that the debate be adjourned.

opposed the adjournment, as he thought that the subject had already been sufficiently debated.

expressed a wish that the hon. gent. would withdraw his motion for the adjournment.

coincided in that recommendation; and to shew that he did not wish to protract the debate, he would abstain from replying to many things which had fallen from the first lord of the admiralty, although certainly that right hon. gent. had given considerable provocations. But when the right hon. gent, denounced a member of that House, a member of society, and stated that innocent blood was upon his head, he would say, what he should be very sorry to say, that either upon the head of the hon. bart. or on that of the right hon. gent. himself, was this blood to rest till washed off at the day of judgment. He thought no man should hastily impute bad motives, and that all should remember that precept of Holy Writ, "Judge not lest ye be judged."

The House then divided: For. receiving the petition 36; For rejecting it 78.—The Petition was of course rejected.