said, he held in his hand a petition, praying for parliamentary reform and retrenchment, and complaining generally of grievances, signed by 2,736 inhabitants of the parish of St. Leonard, Shoreditch. The petition prayed generally for such reform as might seem most agreeable to the House. It was signed by most of the respectable householders of the parish. He had to state to the House, that very considerable obstructions had been thrown in the way of the signing this petition, though he did not mean to say that force had been used to prevent persons from signing. One person had made himself most active on this occasion—he was a police magistrate, a person receiving money from government. The House ought to be extremely jealous of the interference of persons in such a situation to prevent the people from exercising their rights. The individual who had used his utmost efforts to impede the people from petitioning, was well known for his zeal on the opposite side of the question—he was the well known Mr. John Gif-ford. This magistrate had applied to the rector of the parish, to induce him to refuse the use of the vestry-room for receiving signatures to the petition, and this application was successful. Many other efforts were made by persons, who were supposed to be agents of this magistrate and others, to obstruct the petitioners in the exercise of their rights. Finding, however, they could not prevent, by the means used by them, a number of persons from resorting to the place where the petition lay for signatures, they sent persons not resident in the parish to sign it, that they might take this objection to the petition. These signatures, were mostly written by one hand. In consequence of this attempt, one sheet was actually obliged to be withdrawn from the petition. He thought it right to mention this circumstance, that the animadversion which it could not fail to call forth, might prevent those persons, and others similarly disposed, from being active on future occasions.

said, he held in his hand a petition from the incorporated trades of the borough of Irvine praying for parliamentary reform. Seeing the learned lord advocate of Scotland in his place, he wished to ask him, whether the information which he had formerly stated was correct or not, namely, that the schoolmaster and another individual at Glasgow, who were taken up and confined two nights and two days in a dirty place, with a damp unwholesome floor, had been discharged, there being no foundation for any charge against them?

said, he could have no difficulty whatever in stating, that the persons taken up at Glasgow had not been taken up for having convened together for the purpose of considering as to the mode in which parochial relief might be obtained. They had been taken up on a charge of treasonably conspiring against the government. It would be improper in him to state to the House what discoveries had been made against any of the individuals arrested—it would be improper towards the individuals themselves, as it might create an impression against them in the public mind, and it would be improper with reference to the carrying on the public business of the country. With respect to a question put to him the other night whether the oath read by him to the House was one of the papers which was found on the persons arrested: he could not give an answer to it without prejudging the cause of those individuals and doing that which was contrary to the principles of British justice. The magistrates were in possession of evidence which proved that parochial relief was a subject which never had been agitated at any of the meetings.

said, that the learned lord had not returned an answer to his question.

stated, that he had received no information whatever, whether all or any of the persons taken up, on the charge of a treasonable conspiracy, were liberated or not. But he knew the magistrates would not detain one moment any person against whom there was no foundation of a charge. But he had received no information on the subject.

could not help thinking that the learned lord had not understood the question put to him by the noble lord. The learned lord had very properly deprecated all prejudging of the question of the individuals taken up, and stated that an answer to the question, whether the oath was one of the papers found on these individuals would be prejudging their case. But in the question of the noble lord there was nothing about any papers or oath, but whether it was true or not, that the persons arrested had been in fact discharged.

stated, that he had received no information whatever to enable him to answer the question of the noble lord.

said, he had received a letter from Glasgow, informing him that the persons apprehended, and afterwards liberated, had been taken up on the evidence of spies. In this letter it was said, that a spy came lately into a room, where the writer of it, and some other persons were assembled, and declared that a king was of no use. The person using this language was taken before a magistrate, when it turned out that he was a hired spy, and the person who had him taken up was told that if he did not leave the court instantly he should be put into prison. This spy called himself a loyal man. This put him in mind of Mr. John Gibbs, who when he had incurred a heavy penalty for an offence against the excise laws, pleaded that he was a loyal man, and this was found an efficacious plea. Mr. Limbrick, the police officer, too, the other day was accused of violently treating a boy for pulling down a hand-bill, put forth by police agents against Mr. Hunt; the boy was sent to gaol, and did not appear very likely to obtain redress. Mr. Limbrick's defence of himself was only that he was a very loyal man, and attached to his king and country. This sort of declaration of loyalty appeared calculated to cover as many sins as charity.

wished to know, whether he might present at once a number of petitions which he held in his hand?

said, that the indulgence which it was the practice of the House to grant with regard to the presentation of many petitions at a time, was very indefinite. If the member who presented them could take on him to state that they were all precisely in the same terms, it had been sometimes the custom to receive seven or eight at once; but if there were any variations in them, it was the safer and the better course to present them one by one.

said, he would present them separately. He then presented a petition from Grooby, which, he observed, was nearly in the form of others which had been rejected by the House, but the words which had been deemed most objectionable had been left out.

said, he did not know what words had been left out of the petition, but he imagined there could not be any more objectionable than those which remained, viz. the sentence which stated that the House did not in a constitutional manner represent the people.

said, it would be more satisfactory if, on the rejection of a petition, it were understood what were the words really objected to. In the present instance, the petitioners asserted that the House did not represent the people, which was the grievance they complained of, and without asserting which it was in vain for them to approach the House. The ground on which the House rejected petitions in general was, that the petitioners, instead of stating their grievances plainly, went it of their way, and inserted words which might be offensive to those who heard them. Such an objection could not be taken to the petition before them, for the words of it were as inoffensive as might be, it merely stated the grievance they had to complain of, and prayed that that grievance might be remedied by a constitutional representation of the people.

said, he did not pretend accurately to recollect the words of the petitions formerly rejected, but as far as his memory went, the ground on which they were rejected was, the assertion that the House did not represent in a constitutional manner the people of England.

denied that the expressions were the same as those used in a former petition which was rejected. In that former petition it was said, that the House of Commons, in no legal, rational, or constitutional sense, represented the people. He did not defend the correctness of these words, although he had voted for the reception of the petition in which they were contained; but he thought there was so wide a difference between them, and those used on the present occasion, that hon. members who were for the rejection of the former might consistently agree to receive this. When it was said that the House did not legally represent the nation, the phrase might be construed to imply, that it had not the power to make laws to bind the people; but when it was stated that the representation was not constitutional, it was merely a mode of declaring that there had been departures from the constitution which ought to be corrected by bringing it back to its former purity. In short, it was nothing else but a way of stating the argument for reform. He did not think the argument was skilfully stated when conveyed in this language; but it ought to be recollected, that the petitioners were not learned clerks, and could not be expected to speak on abstruse subjects with perfect strictness and technical precision. The question was, not whether they were formally correct in their expressions, but did they mean by these expressions to insult the House? If they did not (of which there was no evidence), their taking their own way of stating their own argument should not be made the ground of rejecting their petition. He wished rather to throw open the door to the prayers of the people, than to shut it. It was much better to receive a petition couched in loose, and incorrect language, where no disrespect was intended by it, than to incur the imputation of cavilling with the expressions and disregarding the complaints of the people.

concurred with the hon. and learned gentleman, that the doors of the House should be thrown open to petitions, and that there should be no cavilling or scrupulous examination of the language in which they were conveyed, so as to find out insults or disrespect. The House had acted on this principle, and had extended to petitioners every indulgence. It had heard from night to night charges of corruption. This allegation, which was now objected to, however, was not a matter of feeling, but a challenge of competency. The hon. and learned gentleman had allowed that he would object to a petition which averred that the House of Commons did not legally represent the nation, but the word constitutional, here used, was exactly the same thing. If the House did not constitutionally represent the people, its sitting was unconstitutional, and its acts were not binding, nor could it legally impose taxes. He, therefore, would oppose the reception of the petition, as impeaching the power of the House, and denying its title to exercise its functions, particularly the important function of taxation.

said, that if it were once received and acknowledged that the House did not in a constitutional manner represent the people, it must also be allowed that it existed in contradiction to the law. What might be inferred from this was pretty plain, and indeed the inference was actually made by some of the petitioners. His hon. and learned friend had said that considerable allowance was to be made for unlearned men and simple persons, and so on. Now, if they looked at the uniformity of these petitions, and the manner in which they were drawn up, they must be convinced that they were not the productions of simple and unlearned men, but were penned by "learned clerks," who knew pretty well what they were about when preparing them.

thought the petition could only be considered as an expression of the opinions of the petitioners as to the state of the representation. That the House virtually represented the people, the petitioners acknowledged, by applying to the House for the change in the representation which they desired. He thought the petition, therefore, should be received as an expression, perhaps foolish, perhaps absurd, but not dishonest, of the petitioners opinions.

observed, that the petition before them called the debates of the House protracted and useless, though the word disgusting was omitted.

read a part of the petition which had been presented from Bristol, on the first day of the session, and received by the House. That petition stated, that the House represented in no constitutional or rational sense the people of England—that the constitution was subverted, and that taxation without representation was slavery. It also stated that the debates of the House were a mockery, and only-served to weary the public patience. Another petition, which had been received, said, "If the House had been really the representatives of the people, instead of being the tools of a grasping oligarchy of borough-mongers, &c." As the House had received petitions containing such words as these, it could hardly with any appearance of consistency reject a petition so much less offensive, as that on the table was.

said, that the statement of the hon. member was one of the best arguments for the rejection of the present petition, as it showed the extent to which insults on the House would be carried, if once admitted by them. If there were precedents for the admission of such petitions, there were also precedents for their rejection, and the House would judge whether it was not wiser to assert its own dignity, than to submit to reiterated insults.

said, that in rising to move for leave to bring in a bill for the purpose of altering a branch of the Game laws, of which he gave notice on a former evening, he should confine himself to a brief explanation of the object he had in view. By the 28th of Geo. 2nd, it was made illegal for any person to sell game. He wished to repeal that act, in order to place this branch of the game laws on a different footing. When he introduced a similar bill last session, it was facetiously said, that is ought to be intituled a bill to encourage poaching; but, if he thought it would facilitate that most pernicious practice—if he were not convinced that it would tend to put it down—he never would have introduced the bill. His great object was, to put down, not to augment, an increasing evil, which first initiated the British peasantry into the commission of crimes. That act of prevent the sale of game was not as ancient as the game laws; it was, comparatively, of modern date; and it had completely failed to produce the intended effect. By the 5th of Anne, higlers, chapmen, carriers, inn-keepers, and victuallers, were restricted from selling game. But, by the act of the 28th of Geo. 2nd, the game-keepers of lords or ladies of manors were prevented, under a penalty, from selling game, without the consent of their employers; but, having obtained that consent, they were at liberty to sell. The 28th of Geo. 2nd, which was an isolated act, unconnected with the general body of the game laws, extended the meaning of the word "chapman" to all persons, qualified or not, who sold game; and it contained a clause which was considered by the preservers of game of very great importance, namely, that where any game was found in the house of a person not qualified, it should be considered as exposed to sale, and the convicted party should be subject to a penalty. This clause might be supplied by a provision in the 4th and 5th of William and Mary, if the operation of that act were not prevented by the 28th of Geo. 2nd. In the act of Wm. and Mary, where game was found in the possession of an unqualified person, he was obliged to state, on oath, the manner in which he became possessed of it. This, he conceived, would be a sufficient protection for the preservers of game. If the House agreed to the repeal of the 28th of Geo. 2nd, he should then move for leave to bring in a bill to enable certain persons to sell game. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to repeal the act of the 28th of Geo. 2nd, and to make other provisions relative to the sale of game."

differed entirely from the hon. member, and regretted that be had again brought forward a measure which so entirely failed last session. If the present system of the game laws were unsettled it might be found difficult to settle them again. He thought the better way would be to appoint a committee, consisting of a few sensible and legal men, to inquire into the subject, and then, perhaps, something might be done. He, however, considered the existing system as highly beneficial, because it induced gentlemen of property to live on their estates; and as the present measure seemed calculated to destroy that bond of union which subsisted between them and their tenants, he should feel it his duty to divide the House upon the question of bringing in the bill.

was surprised that the hon. gentleman, who was so partial to the preservation of game—who knew so well that the sports of the field induced gentlemen of fortune to visit their estates frequently—should have introduced a measure which would have the effect of increasing the practice of poaching in a ten-fold degree, so long as any of those species of animals, recognized by the game laws, continued to exist. The system which he spoke of as modern, was three hundred years old, and therefore was supported by the wisdom and experience of their ancestors. In the reign, of Henry 8th an act was passed prohibiting all persons, except members of the royal household, from selling game. That act continued in force till the time of James 1st, when the prohibition was extended to persons of every class and degree. The game laws might, not unaptly, be compared to an old park-fence; which, though it was somewhat irregular in its form, answered all the purposes for which it was intended, although it might not please the eye so much as a neat fence, which was often less useful than ornamental. He denied that the game laws were made exclusively for the rich, and contended that the system generally contributed equally to public happiness and public good. If it were thought necessary to make any alterations, he would suggest whether increased penalties might not deter from poaching, and also, whether it would not be prudent to inflict a penalty upon qualified persons who purchased game.

was astonished, considering the tenour and spirit of the game laws, how the hon. gentleman who had just spoken could interpret them favourably. From beginning to end they were opposed to every thing like English liberty—they were most unjust, and most impolitic. He wished they were done away altogether, and a different system introduced. It would tend to promote the growth of game, and to extend the sports of gentlemen. He would be better pleased, if a bill were brought in to punish the wealthy buyer of game, instead of the miserable retailer.

thought, that the game laws should remain untouched. There were rights of forest and rights of chase, which were very valuable, but which would be affected by any alteration.

agreed, that if any punishment were to be inflicted, it ought to fall on the wealthy man, and not on the poor tool whom his riches had seduced into an illegal act.

recommended that some regular and connected system should be adopted, and that the House should not resort to temporary measures.

, in reply, observed, that he did not wish to go back to those good old times of Henry 8th, as some seemed to think them, when it was necessary to have a licence to shoot crows. It was certain, that at present pheasants were to be bought and sold in almost every poulterer's shop. He hoped that the House would allow the bill to be brought in and printed, and afterwards they could alter its provisions as they pleased.

, in rising to make the motion of which he had given notice, called the attention of the House to the legislative provision which had been made for continuing the parliament in the event of the demise of the Crown. On such occasions formerly a dissolution of parliament always took place, and all offices held under the Crown were no longer considered to belong to those who had previously possessed them. By the 7th of William 3rd, and afterwards by the 5th of Queen Anne, the inconvenience which had been experienced from the dissolution of the parliament at such a period, was removed, and it was enacted, that the parliament in being at the time of the demise of the Crown should continue to sit for the ensuing six months, unless they were sooner dissolved by the successor; and in the event of their being no parliament at the time of the demise of the Crown, the last parliament was again to assemble and continue to discharge its functions for the succeeding six months, unless sooner dissolved by the successor to the Crown. In like manner, by law, the privy counsellors and all the high officers of state, did not lose their offices on the demise of the Crown, but continued to hold them till the successor was pleased to make some alteration. It was his object to extend the provisions of those laws to all offices held under the crown, civil as well as military. There never could be a time at which such a measure could be more properly brought forward than the present. In ordinary times there might appear something indelicate in bringing such a measure before the sovereign himself, but no difficulty of this kind at present stood in the way, as the bill he proposed to bring in, could not effect the feelings of his majesty, and therefore no such objection could be opposed to his motion. At present, though they knew who was most likely to succeed to the Crown, they could not positively know who would actually succeed, nor could they tell who the successor might choose for his constitutional advisers. This, therefore, was no party measure, but one which, in the present circumstances of the country, he thought was particularly called for. He wished those holding the situations of lord lieutenants, deputy-lieutenants, governors, deputy-governors, and all officers in the army and navy, not to be subjected to the expenses formerly attendant on getting their commissions renewed, if it were the pleasure of the Crown to retain them in their offices. He wished them to continue to hold their situations as if the demise had not taken place. If the House would let him bring in the bill, he would move that it should be read a first time, and then name any day that the House might approve for the second reading. He then moved, "That leave be given to bring in a bill for the continuation of all and every person or persons in any and every office, place or employment, civil or military, within the united kingdom of great Britain and Ireland, dominion of Wales, town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, Isles of Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, and Sarke; and also in all and every of his majesty's foreign possessions, colonies, or plantations, which he or she shall hold, possess, or exercise, during the pleasure of the Crown, at the time of the death or demise of his present majesty, until removed or discharged by the succeeding king or queen of this realm."

said, the course proposed by the right hon. gentleman was so fair* that he could have no difficulty in giving his consent to the bringing in of the bill. He would not debate its merits now, as a more convenient opportunity might occur for the discussion of them on the second reading. He wished to be understood as only concurring in its provisions, so far as they went to guard against any extraordinary pressure of business at such a time on those whose duty it might be to exercise the highest functions of the state.

observed, that the present question afforded him an opportunity of alluding to a subject which he thought deserved the serious consideration of his majesty's ministers. Previously to the dissolution of the present parliament, he was of opinion that some prospective measure ought to be adopted with respect to the continuance of the ensuing one, in the event of the early demise of the Crown. He was aware, that for parliament to prolong its own existence was unconstitutional, but the peculiarity of the case, he apprehended, would justify some step being taken to prevent the necessity of immediately re-electing the next parliament upon the demise of the Crown, which must otherwise be done.

, in an animated speech, called the attention of the House to the distressed State of the Lunatic Poor in Ireland, from the want of proper asylums to receive them. In Dublin there was one institution open for their reception; there was another of this description in Cork; one or two other counties had similar asylums for the reception of the lunatic poor; and there was one in Tipperary, which contained about forty persons. With the exceptions of the institutions of Dublin, Cork, and Tipperary, there was not provision made for more than a hundred persons in this unhappy state in all Ireland, In consequence of this it had become a common practice to bring unfortunate creatures to the door of the institution in Dublin, and there leave them in the most deplorable state, without ascertaining whether or not it was possible for them to be received. In consequence of the report made by gentlemen appointed to investigate the state of Ireland in this respect, he had determined to inquire into it himself, and the result was, he had found, that in twenty four counties in Ireland, not a single cell was provided for the reception of lunatics. It must be felt, that it was not right these unhappy beings should go abroad free from restraint, yet this, was, in many instances, the case, where they could not be sent to the Dublin institution. Some provision for such cases, he was of opinion the House would agree, with him, ought to be made. He would therefore move, "That a committee be appointed to inquire into the expediency of making further provision for the relief of the Lunatic Poor in Ireland."

seconded the motion. He said, that considering the great number of valuable members who were by neglect lost to society, it was a most prudent measure to provide for lunatics; for leaving out of view every feeling of humanity, it was an economical proceeding to erect lunatic ayslums, as they might be the means of curing, and thus preserving to the community many persons who would otherwise lead a life burthensome to themselves and injurious to society.

felt great satisfaction in giving his support to the measure now proposed. Nothing, he observed, could be more lamentable than the state of the lunatic poor in Ireland. Except in Dublin, Cork, and one or two other places, there actually did not exist the least accommodation for such persons throughout Ireland, and in transmitting these poor creatures to the general infirmary, there were some instances of their limbs having been so injured, by being tightly bound down in the vehicles in which they were brought to town, as to render amputation of the limb necessary. Those in a state of idiotcy were the subject of public sport amongst children, while the unruly maniacs were suffered to go about the country, the terror of the neighbourhood in which they resided.

agreed, that there could be but one opinion on the subject; but there were many Counties in England, as Hampshire for instance, in which there was no receptacle for lunatics. If, however, provisions were made for the accommodation of lunatics in Ireland, he hoped the expense would be borne locally by the counties, and not by the nation at large. It had been called a matter of congratulation that there were no poor-laws in Ireland; and that afforded a stronger reason why the expense of providing for lunatics should be local.

stated, that in England the overseers of parishes were obliged to provide for lunatics, and find a place of proper reception for them; and that a bill was now about to be passed, to render the jurisdiction of magistrates more effectual in this respect.

said, that there had been added an establishment called the Richmond Lunatic Asylum, to the House of Industry in Dublin, which was most convenient as a district establishment; but from the opinion prevalent that there was thus Created abundant accommodation for all the Irish lunatics in Dublin, it had occasioned many more to be forwarded than could be possibly accommodated.

said, that ever since he had the honour of a seat in that House, he had declared himself anxious to obtain For Ireland an identity of legislation with Great Britain; but still he entirely concurred with the right hon. gentleman, and would support his motion.