The Sun.
London, England, 1810-05-03 00:00:00

Mr: BYNG Rloved that it do lie on the table.

Mr. MELLISH seconded the motion, but declared
that.the pledge which he had given to the Free-
holders to support the reception of the Petition did
not.authorise them to expea that he should 'be an-
'swerable for the sentiments which their Petition-
contained,

On the qu.t•tion beirg put,
The CHANCEL 1. )1i of the EXCIMUiIIt rose, and
moved that the Petition; be read a- second time.
The Clerk accurlingy rf.A.the Petition...

, • • '" • ,0
Tib CH. itzaELLOR erne • 01:;grved;
• that the lan,.=uaue.orthe Petition jtisi'read Was suidi
, •
as to reaveenodoubt on his mind btit that it-svtas in. 7
tlended to comcy an .insult to thee-dignity of.the,
Tlons'e; :cind corisequenily, was not Et to be reeeiVed•
When, tlit; Westminster Petition had been present.;
ed, he had suggested the iMptopriety of receiving
that Petitio4,2_, The views whiela on that Occasion
he entertained of the object Of the petitioners were
i nowt-idly confirmed by the tone, and language of the
! present Petition. _ It _must be evident to Gentlemen
who felt it their duty to reject that Petitioo, ,that
the tendencyot receiving such Petit idtiti was of a dan.
gerous nature, for though they professed to be Petis
ttons, they wet e in tact nothing- Jess than direct in-
. suits andltbets on the
:House, -When he said thus
he did not by any means with to deny that
any body of Deelors had
.the right of petitioning,'
nor did he wish to deprive them of that, rig's', by,
Shutting the doors of the House, and !urniug a deaf
ear (.o:their cOmplaints, or to their wishes and de-
mands expressed in a legal ananner.•.:ll the Free-
holders of Middlesex were real:y . serious in wishing
the House to review their former proceedings, was
it decorous to convey their wishes in language sucir
as had just been read. He was AfriT,l that by fors '
beara.tice the House had brought noon itself this new
insult. The very face of the Petition skewed that
the Petitioners could have had no other objet in
view than to insult the House. Any reasonable man
must be convinced of the truth of his observation,
if he could look at the
,paragraph itt which it
was alleged that the imprisonment of Gale Jones
was an usurpation of power unknown to the laws ;
to the remainder of that paragraph Which objected
to the legality of the warrant or the Speaker,. and
the manner in which it was carried into execution,
lie had riot so much, objeCtion, as. the explanation
might apply to the mere execution of the warrant.—
The whole of the Petition was drawn up in language
very -diderent rFpni that which • persons would use
who really, tvished a rethess of supposed grievances,
or who wished, the House to resiep its past proceed-
ings. They, iestead of so doing, applied for a '
vision as a.matter of right, andentered their protest
against the proceedings of the House. He would
appeal t:(e every man, however much disposed to
differ
,wiah -him on other subjects;, whether the lan-
guage of the Petition was such its the House could
•tolerate. The Wein Honourable-, Gentleman then
moved that the Petition be rejected on the ground
of its containing laoguage which this House could
'not endure.
Mr. Alderman Costae, in support Althe Petition,
recorraneradedao the li-use nut to d. tide hastAy.—
•They. should ‘eivell. eonsider b. fore they consented to
reject which, whatever was ,lhe language
it contained, spoke the sentiments of the county of
. •
Mr. CALCRAFT d 01.11.1 not agree with the Hon.
Alderman in his view of the. He (lid not
coneeive.the Petition should be received merely be,
cause it, spoke the saitiments at what was called
the county. flewold.not give it_ his support on
that principle, nor oil the ground even of the Pea-
_tioners being, s2coaded by siuilar petittons from
other counties. The ground on. which he was dis-
posed. to,rectti- e the Pella ,n was, that he thought
the House orCommans should open wide its doors
to receive the complaints of the people. With this
feeling he should gese oegatiseeto the of
the Right Honotfrable Gentleman for rejeEting the
eWith respect to the paragraph alluded .to
as being obje,etionable, he cettainly was of opinion
ihae.it had been better omitted;
.bat when he took
into his consideration the sort of representation
now existing, and the grievances re-uoing there-
frOm, le did not think the language of Jlie Petition
should be examined with too scrupulous an eye ;
convinced as he was of. the inadequacy-of the re-
presentation, he should not be surprised if, the
people expieSsed their dise‘mtents in stronger lan-
gatage than the House had been used to listen to.
The Petition, be dici not conceive, was so flamed
as that it ought to, be rejected, for it had ah the
• charader,of a Petition, it finished with a prayer
in the usual form. It prayed for Parliamentary
Reform, and was any man disposed, to deny that was'
not necessary in, the present state of things ?- Was
•the House disposed to regard the declaration of .
that necessity, as a libel'? Was it not true that
seats had been bought and sold, and had any cen-
sure been passed upon the offending. parties ? The
Hon. Gentlethan concluded with supporting tins
Petition.

Mr. D. GIDDY observed, that the Hon. Gentle-
.
man had said. that the doors of the House ought to
be opened wide to .P,titions. To that assertion he
gave his consent ;' but if a Paper profes.ing to be
a Petition contained. not lung more or -Icss than a di-
rep insult to that House, was that any reason why
the House should receive it ? The Petition did not
ask 'redress, but dictated to the House what course
to pursue. It celled, for- Reform, and instead of
stating grievances, demanded the Hoiloe to review
its former decision. On the subject of Reform, he,
should at present abstain from saying any thing far-
ther than, that changing the virtual representation •
into-a deputation of the:people would be att'kided
:with the, most, evil cohsequences. his opinion-
the wording of the Petition was highly disrespect-
fni, and en the whole, was such as the House
could not, receive. If the Petition were received,
others might be presented of a similar tendency.
The. House,, in his opinion, ought to make a stand,
and no time-Avasoltroper as the present: It' had
lx!en saidthat the'Petition was the unaniinoos voice
of the county of- Middlesex ; he was disposed to
respect the voice of the people, except when that
voice was the echo of a ineh. The House was
aware of what
,wasmeant by the unanimity' of a
popular assemblage u the neighbourhood of, great
towns, and in, What-manner that unanimity was ob:
tairred.' With all his respect for poi.ular meetings
,he could not entertain any great -opinion of the
'candour or liberality which. governed the meet-
ing 'in question; when it was_known, that they re,
fused to hear the sentiments of one of the -Repre-
sentatives of the county (Mr; Mellish) because they
thought he would differ with them. He must vote
for the rejection of the Petitit.n..on te gruands he
had stated.

Mr. HAWKINS BROWSE was decidedly against
the Petition being received, becauie it 'Contained ex-
pressions and language which the House could not
entertain. Petitions, in .his opinion, might be re-
ceived, .they professe4 to have different
view: from those generally entertained by the if ou,e,

ii

now.befote the,. House contained the
insult, and denied the privileges of
-piivileges which were- essential to its
The_ Westtniii+ter Petition which he
siV;sorted had a specific obje& in view, but
t his 'Petition bacinc;''otlrer objea than to insult the
1-1 piisr. •

I

Mr. HI'BREUT thought, that as various opinions
,Orevaiied within doors as to the extent of the
:1;-ges of the House, the Petitiobers ouw.ht nut to. be
treated with severity. The House should aet with
the greatest moderation, and not appear, as if. in-
fluenced by any othez native tliaa a real desire to do
ju•ltiCe on the present occasion. The Petition, in
his opinion, was not so very improperly worded, it
iirqely denied the right of privilege to the extent
whicit the , House had carried it, and if Iso the
Petitioners had a right to complain. • The people
had no It-gal means 61 redress against the privi-
leges of the House, and they were tonsetittently
entitled to more indulgence on that account. He
dtd not mean to say that ha entirely approved bf
the Petition. '

Mr. BARNA.M was disposed to condemn the lan-'
guage of the Petition. He thought the question of
receiving it a vety important one, and fit for serious
and mature deliberation. He fegretw ; the Hodse
was not fuller, in order that it Alight reeeivethe dts-
Cussitin now. He was far froui think ng that the ex-
pressions complained of were the effects of-inadvert-
ence on the part of the Petitioners.. It appeared to
be a cool and deliberate attempt to try the temper of
tic House, and to ascer sin how much they- Would
really bear. The House were called-up:Arlo put a
stop to attelupts of this kind, and to sliew Peti-
tioners that :they would not put up with wanton
abuse. • He wished the House to take time to
consider before they decided, but at the sOlue
time, if he were called bn io vote he was prepared
to do so now. The decisi n, if the House %tele
faller, would carry with it m.:re weight, and he
should move" That the debate be ahjuurned till to-
morriiw." - -
Mr. GRENPELL sPconded-the. motion.
• Mr SUMNER tould not consent `to, entertain the
Petition for a moment, the House ought Jant, in his
Opinion, to wait tilt to,MorroW ; •the.Uuariimity of
such a meeting ought not to influence thti decision
of the House. • •
Mr. LAMB-thought that. as the Westminster Pe-
tition hadbeen rec6ived, the'.HOuSe ought not to
rejeEt the wesent'Petitico, because the language was
not str.heger than the ;one already received and lying
on the Table, for that Petition stated that the
House-bad committed a gross indignity- against the
Eletlors 'of Westminster. The motion made by
the Hon. Gentleman behind him fi:r delay had his
support, because the House would be et:anted there-
by to come to the decision on the question fairly.-..
He was the more anxious for a deliberate discussion,
as there was a disposition gaining ground ;through-
out the country, nut so much tp petition for a re- -
dress Of grievances as to ex:,ress an opitii:in that the
Douse was not-legally constituted. ...Under this lin-
pression, the House should bejealOnsof itsproceed-
Tugs, and come to a deliberation and decision with
firm .ess. He, for one, thought the House was. well
constituted, and very fit to discharge the duties
which were imposed on them, either with respeet
to our affairs at home or abroad:: Theparagraph al-
luded to was certainly couched 'in gross terms; it
wonid be improper to Rica the Petition altogether, '
and he should therefore vote for adjourning the de-
bate.

-Mr. WARD.LE adverted to the paragraph alu7ed
to, which he IZ•onsidered as conveying the truth, fur
he had Milady declared in that .House that they had
assumed a power to which they bad no right, and
therefore it was tint to be supp6sed he could hava
any objection to the Petition as con% eying a 113
He contend, d that the Freeholders of Middle ex had
a right to'expres- their:sentiment's by Petition, and
those Gentlemen it, Ito argued that 'the:, Petitioners
meant to insult the Hous..! did not trteatzthern fair)};
the °lily object which the Petitioners- had was-to ob-
tain the prayer of their Petition.-
Mr. ABERCROMBY thought the =Petition was
not such a departure from decoruni asVoUld justify
the-House in refusing to receive it. He:was not
aware hoW the Petitioner's should have expressed
themselves in other language so as to .convey their
meaning,
Mr. STEPHEN" had not the least hesitation in
voting for• the rejection of the Petition, but the
manner in which it had been discussed shewed
the necessity of delay. With respect to the lan-
guage of the Petition, there was no Gentleman
could say that it was such as the House could enter-
tain, but as to its bett.g libelous, that he could" not
at present determine without an opportunity, of
reading the whole of it. The Westminster .Peti-
tion which the House received was not a parallel
cue ; that was a Petition from a body of Constitu-
,t,'rits who had been deprived of their Representative,
and therefore thought themselves aggrieved. The
Honourable Gentleman wished time to consider the
Petition.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was dis-
posed to acquiesce in the motion for adjourning the
* debate, wishing to give an opportunity for a full and
deliberate discussion of the Petition.

Sir JOHN NEWPORT suggested the propriety
of considering the Petition altogether, and not tak-
-mg it paragraph by paragraph, as it appeared to
him, the object of the Petitioners was not that
of offering an insult but to request most ear-
nestly that certain wrongs of which they COM..
plained, might be redressed. -He was for the ad-
journment.
Arr. BY NG did not see how the People of England
could express; their Sentiments in any ocher way.
lie alluded to the case of Wilkes as a point.
A Member, whose naive we could not learn; made
a few obsei v'ations.
Mr. CALCRAPT did not think there were any
words in the PetitiOn which would justify, the House
. .
tejec-titig it.

- - •
Mr. HUTCHINSON expressed his surprise that-
-the House shOuld wish to reject the Petition, and
to prevent the Peopk, from complaining of their
wrongs. NTo.hing could be more injurious to the
safety of the country than to refuse to hear the Pea,
•
pie's complaints.
The question for adjourning the debate was then
pm and agreed to.