presented a petition from certain burgesses and other inhabitants of the town of Hamilton, in Lanarkshire. On a former evening, when presenting a petition, he had been unable to speak to the character and situation of the persons from whom he had received it. In the present instance he could state to the House, that those from whom the petition now in his hand came, were persons of religious habits, whose industry had heretofore maintained them in comfort, and whose general peaceable demeanour could not be called in question. They stated, in temperate language, the distress of which they had to complain, and the grievances which, at length, compelled them to come before that honourable House. Their prayer was for retrenchment in the public expenditure, and for a reform in the House of Commons. Ordered to lie on the table.

said, he had a petition to present from Norwich, which he did not know contained airy thing improper or offensive. This opinion of his, however, did not affect, in his mind, the substance or object of the petition. He must decline giving any particular opinion on the contents, because he thought, that the claim upon a member to give such opinion was imposing upon him a task which was at the same time both invidious and useless— invidious, because it called on an individual member to state an opinion as to the wording of a petition, and because such an opinion was imagined to have a certain degree of influence upon the House. There must be very strong language indeed in a petition, before he could be induced to decline to present one from his constituents. The claim was useless, since, after any member's declaration, the House might totally disagree with the petition; so that no advantage was to be gained from the individual member's opinion. If, again, he thought a petition was improper to present, it might be given into the hands of some other member who thought differently, and the House might afterwards think it was fit to be received, in which case his own opinion would be gratuitous and useless. He then adverted to the case of a rejected petition from Horsham on the 25th of April, 1716, which was refused on the score of improper language. That petition prayed for the repeal of the septennial act, which was styled "an overturning of the constitution and subversion of the rights and liberties of the nation." But he thought, that if the House of Commons would go so far as to double the period of its own existence, he scarcely knew any terms so strong as to prevent him from thinking it his duty to offer a petition upon the subject. He had looked at this petition and its prayer, and he thought it ought to be received. There were respectable names on the first sheet, followed by thousands of signatures. It was on the principle of the question that he thought it right to decline giving his own opinion on the terms in which the petition was couched. He moved, that the petition be brought up.

regretted exceedingly, that he should find himself called upon to oppose the bringing up of this petition, but remembering what he had heard repeatedly from the oldest members of that House, and the firmest friends of the British constitution, that a member presenting a petition should be held to give his sanction to the language of it, though not to the prayer, he, for one, would not consent, after what had been said by his hon. friend, to receive it. If he looked back to the proceedings of parliament, he found the great examples of Mr. Fox and Mr. Whitbread, who were as anxious as any members to support the just rights of petitioners. They had however presented on some occasions, petitions of which they stated that they did not approve the prayer; but then they said they had read them, and did not see any thing in them offensive or disrespectful to the House. His hon. friend seemed to treat this as nugatory, because the House could reject a petition. But was it really a point of indifference to the House to act on such questions as a mere matter of course, and thereby to be compelled to hear a train of expressions offensive in themselves, and impertinent to, or unconnected with, the subject on which the petition was founded? At this rate, a petition of the size of a quarto volume might be brought up and read, filled with extraneous and offensive matter, till the House was quite tired out with hearing it. He was sorry to be obliged to oppose receiving a petition under the present circumstances. He had said to persons who had brought petitions to him, that he was willing to present them, but sometimes they had run to too great a length, or contained what might cause their rejection, and he had then recommended the parties to amend and alter them. It was much the better way to take any offensive matter out of a petition before presenting it. He saw no one benefit likely to arise from any alteration of the uniform and established practice of the House. There must obviously be a great inconvenience in being obliged to sit and hear all sorts of insult and contumacy. He had, on a former occasion, alluded to the circumstances of the Kentish petition. The House, after hearing offensive language, had no way of animadverting upon it but by the rejection of the petition which contained them. The former practice had been to state objections to petitions on the question of bringing them up. It would be a subject of regret if all petitions were to be read as a matter of course. He should regret deeply if petitions were rejected merely because they contained passages which expressed sentiments contrary to the opinions of the majority of the House. He saw no way more effectual for all desirable purposes, than to inquire the opinion of a member as to the character of a petition; and it was the best mode of avoiding the painful necessity of rejection.

had always thought the member presenting a petition bound to read it, but not to go further, and vouch for the propriety of the language it contained, excepting in particular cases, where the House having reason to believe the matter of it was offensive, might require some assurance on the subject. The opinion he had formed had been confirmed by what occurred a few days back. When the hon. baronet had brought up his first petition, no questions had been asked; but when one or two had been read, and found to be disrespectful to the House, and couched in nearly the same terms, he had properly been asked if those which he was subsequently about to present were of the same character. When called to state what the character of a petition might be, he thought the member presenting it was bound to give a pledge, that it contained nothing improper, but he did not think he was called upon to do this in the first instance.

apprehended the rule of the House to be what had been laid down on a former day, and what had been correctly stated by an hon. gentleman on this, that the House had a right to expect a member presenting a petition, would be prepared to declare the language of it was not in his opinion intentionally disrespectful. If he refused to give such a pledge, it seemed hard that the House should be expected to depart from its established rules to receive the petition so presented. The member ought in the first instance to satisfy himself that the language of it was not improper.

said, the feeling of the House must ever be in favour of receiving petitions, and it never could be their wish, in considering what was due to their dignify and what was their duty, to throw any obstacles in the way of petitioners. He thought the hon. member who presented this petition had gone most unnecessarily out of the way, and he hoped it would be felt, that if the motion were opposed, it was not from any wish on that side of the House, to get rid of the petition, but from a desire to assert a principle which had now been brought into discussion. He apprehended the rule of the House to be founded in true wisdom, and true wisdom went to throw open their doors to petitioners in the largest sense, and doing this to be careful not to depart from the established usage of parliament. It was not necessary they should submit to be treated with disrespect to secure to petitioners their rights. What degradation would be theirs, were they to submit to every insult that the wicked imaginations of designing men might be pleased to heap upon them—to read every petition that might be presented, and reading, to put it on their journals, however offensive its contents might be! He trusted the members of that House would not lend themselves to become the channels of insult, and to be used as the means of libelling it In a case where a member doubted what was the course most proper to be pursued, he might with propriety state his doubts, and then the petition could be read, that the wisdom of the House might assist him in coming to a decision. But when the hon. gentleman so broadly maintained that the House was bound to receive any petition that might be offered, without requiring any pledge as to its language, he would say, that if they lent themselves to such a doctrine, they lent themselves to their own degradation, and to the destruction of their own privileges and dignity. As this subject had been forced unnecessarily on the House, he had no difficulty in adhering to the established rule, and, considering the rights and liberties of the subject involved in the dignity of that House, he thought they were bound in the present case to reject the petition.

thought it was rather hard on so respectable a body of men as the petitioners, that their petition should be rejected, because the member presenting it, had expressed an opinion on a matter with which they in the present instance had nothing to do. After all, it could not be doubted that every member would exercise his own discretion whenever a petition was brought for him to present, and he hoped the noble lord would not persevere in his opposition on the present occasion.

after alluding to what had passed on the same subject on a previous evening, observed, that if the hon. member who presented this petition had omitted his observations, it was probable that the petition would have met with no opposition. He might suspect, in such a case, that a member thought that his petition would not be received when read; but he imputed no such thoughts to the hon. gentleman, who, he rather believed, wished merely to raise the question. He could not deny the practice; but he had merely argued against the reasons assigned for the rule, which he seemed to consider as extremely absurd. If a member had any doubt respecting a petition, he could state it. As to a petition, declined by one member, going into the hands of another, that was no argument against the security afforded to the House, by relying, to a certain extent, on the character of one of their own body to protect them against a petition which might contain gross abuse from beginning to end. Many things might be sufficiently stated without offensive language. All responsibility was lost when a member said he had not read what lie presented; yet a libel might thus go to the journals. The point was, whether it was proper to take the chance of a petition which nobody had read, and the risk of insults. It was impossible to assent to this.

replied, that no one was: more ready to bow to the authority of the chair than himself, but he considered the present question as one of great importance. It was upon the principle alone that he stood. He never doubted the power of the House to require of any member that he should declare a petition to be such as the House might receive, or that he might be called upon to read a petition in his place, and in the latter case it would not appear on their journals, if couched in improper language. They could not expect that petitions upon reform, or upon grievances arising from a want of reform, would be expressed in very conciliatory terms; but he did not think it was the duty of a member to make himself the channel of refusal, if he considered a petition objectionable. He was, therefore, ready to abide by the decision of the House on the present occasion, whatever that decision might be.

observed, that no question would have been agitated upon the subject of this petition, if the hon. member had not sought it by stating his objection to saying that he had read it.

thought that the hon. member had fully complied at first with the rules of the House, in saying he had read the petition, though, he afterwards started the general question about the necessity of his compliance. If he would repeat what he had first stated, so as to undo the effect of his subsequent observations, he would vote for the reading of the petition. The hon. member might bring forward the subject on another occasion.

trusted his hon. friend would not give the House the trouble of dividing, but he also trusted that he would not comply with the request of the last speaker. If it were felt that a member ought to read a petition before he presented it, let a fair and honourable understanding be come to on the subject on both sides; but he hoped that no member nor even the House itself, would get into the habit of administering interrogatories to every hon. gentleman who might present a petition. Such a course, he contended, was extraordinary and unparliamentary, and would lead to a course of examination that would be very inconvenient, as, after the question—"Have you read the petition?" the next question undoubtedly would be—"Is it fit to be presented?" and if a doubt occurred here, it would then be asked—"What do yon think of it upon the whole?" To this he must object, and he therefore hoped his hon. friend would not repeat what he had before stated, in compliance with the suggestion of the last speaker.

said, that an hon. baronet had been questioned on a former night in consequence of his having said he had not read one of the petitions he presented. In the present case no one would have thought of asking the hon. gentleman a question.

in rising on the present occasion to submit a motion to the House, was happy to think the proposition he had to offer was one on which he could not apprehend the slightest difference of opinion would exist, as it merely went to acknowledge the receipt of the Prince Regent's most gracious message, and to assure his royal highness that that House would take into its most serious consideration the papers he had ordered to be communicated to them without delay. Whatever the situation of things might be at present, nothing could be further from his wish, than to say, one word that might lead to a debate on the present state of the country, as the very nature of the communication which had been made indicated secrecy to be desirable, as the House were not yet in possession of what ministers considered to be necessary to give them a proper knowledge of the present state of the country. It would cause great embarrassment to him, and to the House itself, were this subject now to be entered upon. All he should at present request of them was, that they would keep their minds free and unbiassed, that they might then act as should be necessary on the report of the committee. There was only one other point on which he would offer a single word. He thought it necessary to oppose the idea that had got abroad, that this communication arose out of the late atrocious attack on the person of the Prince Regent. He begged distinctly to state, that the present proceedings did not arise in any shape out of that outrage. The communication which had been made was founded on information which he thought it would be felt that the government, without abandoning their duty to the country and to the constitution could not but advise his royal highness to submit to the House. Having said thus much, he hoped it would be most consonant with the feelings of the House not to enter upon the views which any gentleman might take of the present situation of the country, from the information which they already possessed. He concluded by moving, "That an humble address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, to return his Royal Highness the thanks of this House for his most gracious message, and to assure his Royal Highness that this House will proceed to take the information which by his Royal Highness's commands, has been laid before them, into their immediate and serious consideration."

declared, that he did not rise to offer any observation in opposition to the motion of the noble lord. But he was solicitous to ascertain from him whether it was, or was not, in his contemplation to proceed immediately on the subject, as in his judgment it was one of ail others, in reference to which any delay must be pregnant with public danger [Hear, hear!].

in answer, stated, that it was the intention to adhere strictly to the precedent established in the year 1795.

said, he had taken the earliest opportunity of bringing the case of Thomas Dugood under the consideration of the noble lord at the head of the department to which he belonged, and it had been ascertained that the youth had not been committed by a police magistrate, as stated by the noble lord. The committal had been signed by a magistrate for the county of Middlesex.

admitted a fact to have been stated of which he was not aware, and which went to do away some of the arguments he had used on the preceding day, but his view of the general merits of the case was not affected by this statement.

rose to present a petition from, a gentleman who complained of being the object of much oppression and misrepresentation. If the petition contained allegations that were untrue, let them be controverted; if, on the contrary, they were true, let the individual have an opportunity of maintaining them. The noble lord then stated, that the petition which he held, was from Mr. Henry Hunt, who complained of a libel having being sent forth upon his character. He stated, that he could prove it to have been printed at the office of the police printer; to have been issued from a police office; to have been, when affixed to different walls of the metropolis, watched by officers of the police stationed for the purpose; and, lastly, that copies of the paper so placarded, were deposited at a police office, for the purpose of enabling the parties who detected others tearing down the bills to identify the torn part from the whole copy so deposited. He hoped, that if such facts were proved at the bar of that House, they would feel the necessity of addressing the Prince Regent, entreating that he would dismiss from the commission of the peace, a magistrate who would be found to have so violated his duty. He concluded by moving, that the petition be brought up.

felt it right to object to the extraordinary course which was about to be taken on this occasion. Let the House reflect for u moment on the situation in which it would be placed, by receiving this petition. It would stand in a situation to pronounce upon an inquiry, without having the power of ascertaining upon oath the truth or falsehood of the allegations at issue. The petitioner had quite mistaken his course. Some papers had been, it appeared, stuck up, reflecting upon his character, counterparts of which were found at a police office. They might have been there without the knowledge or privity of the magistrate; but if they were with his consent, then the remedy lay in a judicial proceeding against the magistrate in due course of law, where the whole evidence might be taken upon oath. The House would not surely convert itself into a court for taking cognizance in the outset of charges brought against inferior officers. He would, therefore, oppose this petition, as it prayed nothing which could not be put in a regular course of redress in the ordinary way of proceeding.

begged to observe, that the noble lord had stated the contents of the petition, and, in so doing, had satisfied all the forms contended for in the presentation of petitions.

said, he should not oppose its being laid on the table, but he should certainly oppose any further proceedings on the allegations which it contained.

said, he held in his hand a petition from a number of the inhabitants of Warrington, in the county palatine of Lancaster, complaining of a gross violation of the subject's best privilege—the right of petition. If the facts alleged in the petition were borne out, and in their support he had two affidavits, he sincerely hoped, that whilst documents, probably of an opposite tendency, were about to be referred to a committee soon to be appointed, the subject's complaint of grievances would also be entertained and examined. It was the indubitable duty of the king's government to preserve the public peace, and of that House to support the executive in the constitutional manner of conserving the national tranquillity; but, on the other hand, it was no less the indubitable obligation of that House to see that the people's grievances were redressed, before they were driven to those acts of violence which the disregard of protection might alone originate. If that, as he took it, was the first duty of the representative, it was particularly imperative in its application when the nation was suffering in the most afflicting extent, when at least no obstruction should be given to the bare consolation of expressing in a legal, peaceable, and constitutional manner, their complaints. The House would best guard against public outrage, as it would best fulfil its natural duty, by listening to popular grievances; by throwing open its doors widely to the claims of general misery; but, above all, by marking with its determined indignation any effort to stifle or impede it. The case to which the petition referred appeared to be one where a most serious obstruction was given to the right of petitioning. A petition had been signed by some hundreds of the inhabitants praying for retrenchment and reform. Its language was guarded and cautious; it broached no violent doctrines. Yet the petition was forcibly seized in the streets, as it was handing from house to house for signatures, by a man named Richard Burrows; was given by him to Edward Coates, and afterwards was forwarded to Mr. Thomas Lyon, the nephew of the acting magistrate, in whose house Mr. Lyon resided. Application was made for it by letter, stating the outrage, but the petitioners were unable to recover it. A second petition was then drawn out, but from an informality in the signatures it was unfit to be presented. The subjects right was thus obstructed by the unjustifiable outrage. The petition he held in his hand complained of that outrage, and he had therefore to move to have it brought up. The petition was then read, setting forth, "That the petitioners, together with a considerable number of the inhabitants of Warrington and the neighbourhood, signed a petition to the House; and that, on the evening of Wednesday the 22nd day of January 1817, the said petition was forcibly seized in the street by Richard Burrows, carried by him to the house of Mr. Edward Coates, and conveyed from thence to Thomas Lyon, junior, esquire, from whom the petitioners have not been able to recover it; that, in addition to the petition seized by the said Richard Burrows, which contained about three hundred and fifty signatures, there are other parchments, with copies of the said petition affixed, having five hundred and six signatures to them; that, after the seizure of the aforesaid petition was known, no more signatures to the said petition were received, otherwise the number of persons subscribing it would have been considerably increased; that the petitioners humbly conceive the outrage of which they complain to be not only a gross attack on the right of the people to petition; but also a high breach of the privileges of the House, as it is prejudging the question, and not leaving its decision to the wisdom of the House, who alone have the right to determine whether the said petition should be received, and whether its prayer should be granted; and the petitioners humbly pray that the House will take into their most serious consideration this attempt by lawless violence to prevent the petitioners from submitting their wishes to the House, and that they will take such measures as may appear to the House the best calculated to prevent a recurrence of such outrageous, illegal, and unconstitutional proceedings, and that they will thereby secure to the petitioners that right of petitioning which is the birthright of every Briton."

said, at present he should merely move that the petition do lie on the table, in order to give every opportunity to the parties complained against of vindicating themselves, and to put the House in possession of every fact. If this opportunity was not embraced, he should in eight or ten days, feel it his duty to take some further measures.

approved the course that the hon. and learned gentleman had taken in letting it lie on the table, and he thought it probable that no further steps would be taken, as though lie knew nothing of the transaction, he was convinced, on explanation, it would prove to be no serious intention of obstructing the right of petition, but a mere coarse joke, such as he knew to be common among the lower classes of the manufacturing districts. That it appeared to him a new petition might easily have been prepared and signed in the course of a few ours; the persons who signed the former one and the parchment being at hand; and that he ventured to think it would not be found a subject worthy of the serious attention of the House.

could not suffer this matter to pass without making one or two remarks. And, first, he must express the extreme satisfaction which he felt at the temperate and moderate language in which his hon. and learned friend had stated this most extraordinary occurrence to the House. The hon. member opposite had been pleased to call it only a coarse joke; but to him it appeared one of the most gross and flagrant violations of the privileges of the people, and of that House, that had ever occurred. In the present situation of the country nothing could be more dangerous than to give the people an opportunity of stating, that their petitions: were not suffered to reach that House. The distresses of all classes of the community were unparalleled in the history of the country; and they should be permitted, at least, to state their grievances, in order that the House might adopt the most effectual means of administering relief. His hon. and learned friend had very properly suggested, that other information might be afforded on the facts of this petition; but if that information was not presented to the House, he hoped nothing would prevent his hon. and learned friend from showing to the people, that their sacred and indubitable right of petitioning would be preserved, at least by the faithful representatives of the country.

concurred in the praise due to the temperate and proper mode in which the petition was introduced, and he regretted that such a subject had for a moment been treated with levity. It was a duty paramount to all others for the House to show the people that it would protect the humblest individual in the land from any obstruction to his right of petition—a right solemnly recognized by the Bill of Rights, and the fair exercise of which could not for a moment be trenched upon. The House, when such an allegation as this petition contained was made, should trace the matter to its source, and show that they would not allow such an outrage to be for a moment endured.

denied that he had treated the subject with levity. He really believed that, on inquiry, it would prove as he had said.