Star.
London, England, 1810-05-04 00:00:00

Whatever danger the House of Commons Were etc-
posed to from foreign influence, it certainly dii not
appear that the influence of the peopie.w,Tild have
mach weigh: there. He could not, hoverer, pass
over in silence an observation of an Hon. G_sntleman
BMr. Wardh), that the commitment of Sir Fra2c;s
urdett to the Tower was a matter of hailial and
ieioicing to those who sat on that, Si if. of the House.
He perceived that those who sat on that aide were the

most subject to the attacks of that Hon Mem ;
but he would wish to know in what part of the House
he would lash them to sit ? Would he have them go

over and sit upon the tfoisterial Benches ? It a-P-
-pearedto him, that those Ministers who rebuked the

City of London for presenting,t petition on the an-
tra Convention,"and who act4Zl in the game manner

on the more infamous and wicked expedition to Wal-
cheren, were most decided enemies to the Ogle. of pe.
titianing. If there were any persons in the country
actuated by feelings malignant to the Constitution,
the way to disappoint ther malice would be to receive
and coolly discuss the petitions presented to them.—
He could not, however, see any of that sort of feeling
in the proceedings of any of the public bodies.
Mr. BARHAM (in explanation) declared, that he
was not one of those who were described as cheering
the committal of Sir Fr Inds Burdett. He felt the

vote that he ~hould give for the rejection of this Peti-
tion as a most painful d:ity, and he had expressed his
feelings in the Resoltition whieh he had moved.
Mr. WI LnE It FORC E said, that there was no per-
son more disposed than himself to treat with extreme
tenderness the right of petitioning. He should he
very unwilling to reject any Petition, merely from an
inadverent expression which might appear disrespect-
ful ; but when he considered the entire language of
this Petition, he felt himself, under all the circum-

stances of the case, compelled to reject it. If they did
not reject the, present Petition, he did not see how
they could ever in future ;eject any Petition on the
ground of its being concLed in disrespectful and of.,
fensive language. The shades of what was offensive
in expression were infinitely varied ; but it did appear'
to him that, in the present Petition, the object of the
Petitioners was purposely stated iit most offensive lan-
gnace. The Petitioners miht have come forward
and stated every elin7 which thee thought proper to
state in language which would not have been offensive
or insuking to the House. There was this cliff:fence
between the Middlesex Petition and the Petition of

Westminster which had been received The Mid-

dlesex Potit;on stated broadly directly, that the 1
House of Common,: acted c3nlrary to the law ; and, 1
in the mannLr r.i exi)ressing it, appeared as if tho law
was so cis' r and undeniable, tint no one could have
misunderstood it ; but that in acting against the law,
th,y hal acted against their own conviction. Now
the Petition from Westminster did net go that length.
It stator', that " in our opinion," and '6 we are
convinced," and in oinaliti;tl expressions of that
ture, that the law had v !en violated ; bit it did no
state it Positively, as t!,:6 I\7iddlex Pet4:on did.
It was true that the Middlesex Petition (ided in the
technical manner with a prayer, which the Westminster
Petition did not ; but he would comider much:more

the eeneral spirit of the Petition, and whether it was
meant to be insulting or not, that be would the mere
technical form. And yet the Right Hen. Gentleman
(Mr. Fitzgerald) who new e)
.strenuously supported
the present Petition, thought, on the question of the
Westminster Petition, that it was a point extremely,
eoubtful, and that the scale barely preponderated in
'favour of its reception. As this had been his opinion
on that occasion, he did not see how he could now
fairly charge his Majesty's Ministers with hing to
destroy the right of petitioning, when they had con-
sented to receive the Westmins:er Petition, which was
couched in sad' language as to have made the Right
lion. Geotlemin himself doubt whether it ought to
be received or not. Ile felt himself obliged to vote
for the rejection of this Petition ; and he did so with
the less reluctance, as there was nothing it it which
mieitt net at a future time be stated to the House in
plan totobjectionable terms.
Mr. Et..I,ISOINI said, that if he really conceived
Jett tile House was held in such contempt by the
country as it was often seeited to be, he should feel
ashamed to sit theme; but he was convinced that there
was no foundation for the statement—(46 No, cer-
tainly not," from the Ministerial Benches). To
whore were the country to look for any importaat
advantages ? was it to the Honourable Baronet who
was in the Tower, or any of his partizans ? It ap-
appeared to him that a party had sprung.up in the
country which it was the duty of that House to crush.
He objected to the Petition, as being in many parts
false. It was not in the execution of the Siwaker's
Warrant that innocent blood had been spilt ; but the
• loss of some lives proceeded altogether from the neces-
sity of preserving the public peace, and the impossibi-
lity of V w'military bearing any longer the many indig.
nities and attacks they had been exposed to. The
mob, on the late cecasien, were in some respects
more dangerous than that which assembled in the
time of Lord 3 George Gordo t. The mob of :Lord
George Gordon had not cow!, as the late mob had
done, with pistols in their pockets, and did not, like
them, fire upen the Military. Uni!:-r the recent cir-
cumstances, the candect of the military w.is most ex.
cmplary. He should vote Lir rejecting the Petition,
as being unfounded in truth.
Mr. MORRIS didatot perceive any thing in t,he
present petition which was so very offensive as that
the House should refuse to receive it. The debate
appeared to have taken a very different turn frorn
what it had taken the preceding tight. On the last
night the objection seemed to be merely that the
power of commitment was denied ; bat on the pre-
sent oceasioa toe objection was generally that the
language of the Petition was offensive. He did not
think, that asserting that the nothe had acted crih-
vary to law in-a late instance, was denyng that they
had a right of committing. They might have that
right on other occasions from the necessity of the case,
and yet it might happen that they hod it nut in the
case of the libel, which WAS an cefence that- neigh: be
punished in the due course of law. The people
might well doubt that they had such a right ; and it
it should turn out that they had it not, then it must
be allowed that they had done arm illegal act. It was
said, by one of his Majesty's Ministers, that the
House must now make a st.wd, or that their table
would be covered with similar Petitions. This how-
ever was not his opinion; nor did he expect that
many other c unties would petition on this subject,
whatever might be the (;tic: of the relitiew for Mid-