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

. .
Miser- He thought the Honse would in tea &tees
re.:ietre itself from hearing petitions similar in sub. .
stance, by rejecting the present petition. On the
contrary, the rejeceien of it would naturally le -el lea
anothef County Meeting, and another Pet ..e ei.—
This, however, should be no consideration, if the i'ei-
vileg..s of the House were s&-iutisly attaekect; .utif
they were not seriously attacked, it wallet he -v girth
considering whether any real advantage would be ob-
tained by rejecting the petitheni.
Colonel WOOD felt himself under the necess!ty of
rejecting the Petition, oa accnnnt of th • d:srespt ctful
and eirensive terms in which itTves coached. He per-
fectly agreed with the Honceireble Gentleman who
spoke tact in reie respect, in thinking that whetev, r
might he the fate of the present Petitioe, there was no
probab lity of many similar Petitions being precenwd
from other ewieties. He was convinced that this
Petition was by no means what it professed to he, a
Petition from the Freeholders of Middleeex in full -
county assemieled. He was convinced that not one-
third of the persons who attended that meeting were
Freeholders. He himself .vas a Freeholder tit Mid
dlescx, but staid away from the meeting, for the stem
reasons that many cdter Freeholders did, upon the
certain conviction that they could nit obtain a fait
heering, and that many hundreds of persons would
come to that meeting horn tit% metropolis, who were
got Freeholder:, but who were determined tea drewn,
by noise and alarm, the expressions of any sentiment
bat whet they came to se 'pert. He wes sure that
the real Freeholders of Middleeex would consider
themselves disgraced by sech a Petition t and that if
the County were to b.: palled, nine Freeholders out of
ten would rote against it; He, therefore, in the name
of the Freeholders of, Middlesex, protested against this
Petition, as rot cOnteining their !sentiments.
Lord ARCHI B ALll HAMILTON did nor
think the language of the Petition so disrespectful as
to make it necessary for the House to reject it. He
had himself stood up for the right of commitment,
but he thought it perfectly fair and allowable for any
Petitioner to deny the right. The word' protest' had
been objected to, as offensive to the dignity cf./that
House ; but he did net perceive any thing in that
word more thin a solemn denial of the right, the
exercise of which they complained of. It appeered
to him that there were other parts in the Petition
which were more offensive, yet of which no notice
had been taken. Ile did not like to hear asserted,
thit all public men were comipt, and that they were
'ocuelit and sold. -The Middlesex Petition seemed to
have introduced that doctrine rather unnecessarily.
upon the present occarion. The Petitioners dwelt
pointedly on the sale of seats in that House, and on
the corrupt state of the representation. This topic, in-
troduced, as he thought, unnecessarily, appeared to
him more disrespectful to the House, and conveying
me-.• offence than the use of the word protest, which
had been so much dwelt on. Neve-rthelcss those parts
of the Petition which appeared to convey the greatest
offence were passed over without any observation,
while others of much less moment were urged as a
ground for rejecting the Petition. He did not ap-
prove of the language of the Petition, but he could
not firing himself to reject it.
Mr. STEPHEN had voted on the night before for
ail tiejournment of this question, in order to give Gen-
tlemen an opportunity of comparing the different
parts of the Petition, and coming to a deiiberate de-
cision upon their tendency. By this delay they wer•
enabled to judge, whether this Petition was presented
fir the purpose of doinA away what might be fairl7
coneidered as a grievance, or whether it was intended
as a studied insult on the House—as an attempt to
make it the instrument of its own dishonour, the
record of its own reproach. With respect to the
question, whether that House was bound to receive
every Petition, however couched, which came before
it, there was bet one opinion, with the tole exception
of a Right Hon. Gentleman opposite. There was
no doubt the right of p:titioning was vested in the roe
ple, but there was as little doubt that the right of r
jetting such Petition was vested in the House, provie
ded it was conveyed in indeceet or insulting terms. Theo
people had an equal right to petition the King; but
surely no one could contend that their address ought tit
be received, if it was not drawn up in the most rea•
pectful manlier. The statute of Charles 11. which ell.
the right to person, declared also that that ngblll
.ought to be properly regulated. With respect to the
present petition, lte was afraid the delay which haa
taken place had not been employed as it might in its
mature consideration. He was led to this opinion •
;from the assertion of an Honourable Member oppoe
f site, who s.tid he did not think the Petition denied
the power of the House to commit, and that if hip
thought it did, he would vote for its rejection. Novk
in neither part of this sentiment could he agree. II
the people saw any objectionable power assumed by
that House, or any obnoxious measure pass it, tint
had an undeniable right to petition against such act
or such assumption, with this restriction only, that
they did it in respectful terms. The present petition,
however, did distinctly declare, that in committing
the Howe had usurped a power " unknown to the
Law, andgot warranted by the Constitution." This
was surely'a denial of the power assumed by tho
House. But, lest there should be any doubt, the pe-
titinn weet farther, and not only reprobated the pnii-
ci ?le, but protested against -the practice. Their pro-
test, too, had every form of a protest ; and they ac-
tually declared that they presented it in order that it
1 might be entered on the Journals, as tb.e letter of
. Sir Francis Burdett was not so entered, although the
vote of the House which committed him was. Now
that letter had been declared by the House a flagrant
I violation of its privileges ; and if after such declare-
tion, counter approbation of that letter presented to
the Holm was not to be considered an insult, it was
hard to say bow far they might be carried bb
their forbearance. Some Gentlemen opposite had
I declared that they conceived themselves camera.
1 ted from all blame or responsibility on this sub-
' ject. as it was the conduct of Ministers, and tu,
nisters alone, which had excited, those Petitions.—.
This was not true ; all parties in the House had
agreed as to the libellous doctrines of the letter which
had caused the committal of Sir Francis &mine, and
it was in consequence of that committal that the law
tieons had lova presented. *He warned ; üblic am
how they now sought individual exoneration, manta
aloof in the moment of fetch an attack ; it was ioelee4
la reguler ss stematic .itetek—the result of a *esters
Ideeply considerededangerously organiaed, and mop
by every means to be widely diguscd mow tarn pep