The Sun.
London, England, 1810-04-18 00:00:00

at".e zing his person; they‘conte-r-nded against
that vierlence, and further,- they allege, that iri the
Letter he wrote tO..his Constituents he argued
ably, le:!611:,,, and 'consitetionally; they had the-riglit
'tr; their opinion- on these points out of this
1-lowit,,-end he ,(Mr. Whitbread) had Contended in
House that the Hon. Baronet in-so arguing the
(In.-*on hail .not violated the law. With. respect to
other allega:ior in the Petition, that she Home
bid refused to- exareitie two of its Members (Mr.
P. reeval and Lord C istlereagh) on a charge of hav-
ing connived at the buy- itig and selling seats in Per-
liament, why there the Electors were right, for they
were informed by the publication of the votes of the
fit:it of refusal, and were eon.equently at liberty to
express an opinion on. the subject. The Petition con-
taieed.allusions to ezpressionsof..other Members, of
hich lie should say neehing, " but witieregard to
dee expre'sSioteeattributed to you, sir, (said Mr. W.)
which they have gathered Iron certain publications,
had the felicity of
.beieg present
.when you made
use of those sentiments Which d d you•so much ho-
nour, and I do know that the publication. cor-
responds with, them, and hat they have gone forth to
all parts of-olie country, and have given the people
the greatest 'delight, As _to the quesbionitig the right
ofseiling Sir Francis Burdett (loi...whose release they
ifrayed), they did soon. he ground that they con-
ceived it was not legal to seize upon a man and
im-
prison him withontehe form of atrial. -Many per-
. sons would qiiestion,
,nay had questioned the lega-
lity of' the s6ietire; sorely then the Pectors of West-
mln,leF who had been dcpri%ed of their represents;:.
live had the tight' to- question" it. When the opinithi
of the Attorney-General appealed as it'had done in
all the publications, was it surprising that after such
an opinion, that persons'unlearned in the law should-
questiOn, the _legality of breaking the -outer dOor of
the Baronet's house ? Was it surprising,. too, that
they shoulc4,wish a Reform in Parliament, and' t hat
they -should pray for the release- from pri,
son' of the ablest champion of ileforat ?` It had
beehe said that great 'indignity-, was offered to-
the Hetise by the Lnuage of the Petition. His
Ben. Friend "might refer_ that indignity to the Ser..'
jeant and his assiStants, and to. the Other eiders and
_abettors he the seizure. The teinduet of the• Go--
yernment in calling --out the military, was highly
blamable..' With'regard-to the EleetOrs' Petition
tome years since, which alleged that .seats were
bought and sold like cattle in a market-, wiry it was
froth.- .It could not be. denied, and thOugh " we
love the triithoe--vet we cannot btwito be told we
-are traitors." Why, was it not notorious that ia;ely
seats were bought an-l.sold, an,i-tiGyt- this House re-
fustd to inStitute an:inquiry / Yet, when. the ki,tec-
, tors of Westminster in a petiti,n stile the fia, the
.1
-loose is trebe told by his Hon. Friends that the
"Fletiors insult thetas. What right has the House to
:Complein of in.suli upon. being •told rUth ? He must
beg ins Hon. Friends-to-read the Petition c'iolly,—
"to OnvaSi its contents, and then say,whether, from
,a Meeting so tetop:_:ratelycondtoed; so Le6ally held,
arid where a yetition was carried without a .dissette
-tient voice, ,the House should reject it. If •the
Rouse adopted such suggestions, he wps afraid .that
the seetiments express-ed. by the Speaker. in respeet •
:to petitions would be of no „avail. ".You, Sir,"
said fir. \V.= magnificently said, this House will
ouall occasions open wide the• doors to pethio'ners.”
But if this petition is tejeCted,..l think the House
will for the future shat, its doors fast against Peti-
tioneis." The rejee•tion he' should consider as one
of ;lie most violent acts Of, injustice ever committed.
He shOuld heartily concur in voting for the Petition
lying on *the "'able, and in the opinion- expressed
thereine that a Reform in the -Repressntatioe is ne-
'ce,slry, for not only the Country desired it, but the
stood in treed o it. • -
- The CIIeNC.ELLOa of the EXCHEQUER had abi:
stiiiired from delivering his sentiments sooner, not
from .any :wish to objot to the• Petition, for .he
thought upon. doe consideri!ion .that the House
eshould go farther than it' was uSually disposed to.do,
anti reeette it,. He felt a great :clitlieulty as to the
language of the. Petition ; certainly there were ex-
pressions which had better been left oute-beCause
they. were enkulated to create greateernotions in the
minds of sonic of those to whom the Petition was
,- addre,sed. ,Instanels of forhearaihe in the House,
:on the subjea of . rejecting 1 Petitions, unguardedly
worded, -Was not uncommon. In the case of Horne
Tooke, the House thought, that was a Pent ion'they
wetebotind to receite, though not couched in the
most respeelltil language. Though they reprobated
that langeage; yet• they looked- to. the saslatiee of
the Petition. With respea to some part of the
wording of the present :petition,. it did apeear rather
harsh, particularly that part ;which stated, " that
the House had better not have censured Sir Francis
Burdett," &c. That_ ;gas ksort of language which,
"if the House Was disposed to :lOok at captiously,
might afford-ground fur 70*(91011 ;Thut if the House
were only disposed to look at the question of 'he
right of the subjeol, then undoubtedly . they had a
right to expresS a wish that this • House should re-
consider that censure, and to state. that
.they had
been deprived. of gone of their. Mi:rnbers, who was
necessary in their councils, On, the subjeA of Re-
form there was no doubt every individual lied -the
right to ;petition. lie thouight the House would
_riot 361 justly iii advising the rejeelion of the peti-
tith, but-that they should-shut their- eyes to what-
- evet -might be not. smelly decorous in the language.
Wit ti respect•to the vt'etd " renioostraec•-;!' he was
not eerfeetly satisfied that the :flouse- had rejected
petitions on diet ground'; he did-hot know that
there was no precedent for receiving remonstrances
.3s-welt as petitions. The greatest :objection e hich
he flit was the. denial "Of the petit iorters that the.
Heu,e had not judged rightly in censuring Sir Fran-
cis Burdett, ,Upon bole, • the Right Hon.
Gentleman was of opinion the House would act
wiser to receive the petition; if they -had Merely
doubts 'noon it.

Mr. PONSPNBY •bad react the Petition over three
times,
.and- was satisfied it did not contain any mat-
ter which ought to call upon.the H'ouse-to reject it.
line Right Eton, Genticman 'commented on the pe-
tit on paragraph by 'peragrtph, _which -though- he
not this v 0..1ed exactly as i; ought to be, stillhe
-t ought -it ought to be. received.
Mr. CANNING agreed with his Right Hon. Friend
(Mr. Perceval), that it would be .better to receive
he P it it w: s withdrawn, theconegner_ce

i,;(\tild be, that one perhaps more objectionable
wonid be presented.
Mr. W. Sxr:Tit congratulated the House, that in
acceding to the petition's lying on the table they had
risen superior to fear, and he hailed the return, of
moderation and true courage, which would do more
t o the country than if the petition bad been
ejec fed
Mr. WHITBREAD,. in explanation, stated that he
was prepared to contend, that even if the, 'petition
Could be construed into an indignity to the HOUR.,
.no reason fOr rejecting it.

The Petition was then-laid on the
SIR FRANCIS BURDErr,

The SPEAKEIt informed .the, Hr use that he had
this day re6liiied a fresh notice. of trial, signed,
Francis Burdett, dated 17th April."
The notice was' then read, and it was • word for
word the same -as the original.notTce, only varying
the parish in which the illegal act was. said to be
corritnitted. •

•The CHANCELLOR. of the EXCHECILWI; in moving
that this Paper be entered on the Journals; took Oc-
casion to observe that the present was a subject of
"very great iMportance. He. wished Gentlemen would
turn their minds td the -question, whether the
transition for which a process hadbeeri served-upon
Mle Speaker was not a pi oceediog within that House;
hd if so, whether that process
_was not a direa vio-
lation of the. Bill Hof Rights? ShOuld that 'turn out
to be the case, he would not anticipate the course
which it might be necessary to pursne.. He only
mentioned, the subject as one -which deserved the
serious consideration of every Member of the House.
Mr.WHITBREAn allowed that this was a 'question
of great iniportance, and he trusted it would expe7'
rietice the most calm and -deliberate consideration.
He should mpt•have said a word upon it, had it not
been that he could not permit tneobscry,tions of the
Right Hon: Gentleman with respect to.,the Bill of
. Rights to pass unnoticed. •He -conceived that the
Right Hon. Gentleman had•taken aserrort,ons a
view• 9f the Bill of flights even as Mr. Yorke him-

The CHANCELLOR: of the EXCHEQUER, reTieateci,
that he had
:stated the question-for t ire coo,:iderition
of the House',
,would f,e lot- ihern to determine
whether the trans. clion to which he alluded was or
was tiot a proceeding in the-Huu,e. 71',.e Bill of
Rights declared that not.only spveches but procced-
ioos in that House should be exempt irom the in-
te;fience now attemptt,cl.

fine Lever was then Ordered to be entered on the
Jvurnals.• , . ,

. Oct the Motion of Mr. PONtOZCZY- (after a few
observations-fiotii Mr; Giles any ..Mr. D. Gi Idy,)
there Were, orderel, lAd before the Hou,e,
the names of all the Commitisioncrs, Engineers, Sur-
yeyors,.Clerks, tkr-. appointed to inspect the Irish
.BogDr:nnAge ; together with an account of all the
sums pai,i under the authority of the -said. Commi-
ssioners,

•On the iiiotion of. Mr.-R. S: DuNzms, the an-
.nnal
.account :of he East India Company were or-
. dered.to be laid before the ,House.

MR. Ir:/sIT.

Mr. ALC'RAFT, although the motion which he
waS about to make was of great importance, did not
conceive that it _would be necessary to detain the.
rHOUSelong Upon it. The motion was," That Mr.
Huut late Treasurer of the Ordnance, be expelled
from fliat.HOuSe.":. This was, certainly proposing a
gi'eat and. grave ptinishroent to be intlitied on the
but.lie was persuaded thit't hose who had
Considered the Twellih Report of the CommissiOn-,
-ers of Miliiary inquiry— .
The SFEAKRR here interrupted the Honourable
Gentleman, to inquire of the Serjeant (inconformity
to
.the usage of the -Hotis.e)
.whether the Hon. Gen-
tleman, who had been ordered to attend, was a6tually
in attendance?
The Serjeant replying in the negative; the Mes-
`senger who served.theorder of t HouSe was called
to the Bar, and :examined by the Speaker and the
,Chancellor of the Exchequer. The substance of his
statement was, thit he had served the Order at the
Ordnance Office, that he could niskdiscover Mr.
Hunt's private residence„ but:_that 1117. .Crewe (the
Secretary)-had told him that he supposed. he was
out of/England.
Mr. CALCRAFT stated, that an Hon; Member had
infOrmed hirn that Mrs. Hunt was in town, and that
she had lately received a letter from Mr.. Hunt,
dated Lisbon, •

The CHANCELLOR of the 'EXCHEQUER observed,
that this Was a serious question, and that the House
would do well tO•take great care in satisfying them-:
.selves that formal and substantial., means •had been
adopted' of apprising the individual concerned, if he
were. adually to he found; of the objett in view.
For this purpose he was desirous that the Hort..Gen-
ileman would withdraw his motion, with the view
of renewing it after the recess. •
. Mr. CALCRAFT agreed .t(tat this was a most so-
lemn and, imFortant question,' and said he would
willingly waive his• motion until after the recess;
Mr. WiteraitgAn took the .opportunity ot putting
a question to the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite.
It had been stated by. him, that the.late .Masier-
General of the. Ordnance in March tendered ,his
.resignation to his Majesty, which had ,been accept-
ed. HeV.VIr. W.) had since, however, enderstood,
that the Noble Lord still, continued to do the duty
.of that office—to enjoy the patronage of that office
—And to rec Ave the salary of that office. Was that
the case To this question lie trusted a direct ne-
,gative could be given.
The CHANCELLOR the EXCHEQUER replied,
that in point of -law it was necessary that the Noble
•Lotd should hold-•the si!uatien until the appoint-
ment of his successor. So many other considera-
tions pressed on his Majesty's Government that it
could not appear extraordinary. that .they had not
yet attended to this business. _ The Noble .Lord had
however abstained
.from taking a seat in the Cabinet
or otherwise assisting in the deliberations of his Ma-
jorfty'S*government.
Mr. WHITBREAD declared, that a gross delusion
had been practised on the House and the Pub& ;
the Right Hen. Gentleman having on a former oc-
casion distinCtly declared in atiSWer to question
from himself, that Lord Chatham had, tendered his
resignation; and that that tender had,been accepted.
Had it not been for this representation., he should