Star.
London, England, 1810-05-03 00:00:00

EVERSION BILL.

Earl GROSVENOR gave notice, that he should
move the second reading of the Reversion Bill on Fri-
day, for which day the Lords were ordered to be sum-
moned.

Lord HOLLAND wished that Ministers would
state what their course of proceeding was intended to
be, with reference to the point started on the discus-
sion of the former Bill, relative to the necessity of
having his Majesty's consent in some stage of the
Bill.

The Earl of LIVERPOOL stated, that he had
not received his Majesty's commands to make any
communication relative to the Bill.
Lord Viscount SIDMOUTH adverted to what he
had said on the discussion of the former bill; and obser-
ved, that he had not then heard any doubt suggested
as to the necessity of having his Majesty's consent in
some stage of it ; and if he now heard no doubt sug-
gested upon that point, he should assume it to be ad-
mitted that his Majesty's consent was necessary in
some stage of the present 'Bill. In that case, he
thought it would be most expedient for Ministers to
advise his Majesty to give his consent in an early
stage of the Bill. He did not, at the same time,
mean to contend that the want of his Majesty's con-
sent ought to prevent the discussion of the Bill.
The Earl of ROSSLYN expressed his satisfaction
in the understanding that the discussion of the Bill
ought not to be prevented by the want of his Ma-
jesty's consent.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, that, whatever
might be the opinion of Noble Lords, with reference
to his Majesty's consent being necessary, or to the
propriety of-giving that consent in an early stage of
the Bill, he was persuaded that the want of his Ma-
jesty's consent ought not to be pleaded in bar to the
free discussion of the Bill.
Earl GROSVENOR did not think his Majesty's
consent necessary ; and it should be recollected, that,
if it *as to be held that his Majesty's consent was ne-
cessary before they could proceed in a particular stage
of a Bill, the House would in a great degree surren-
der their own privileges. He thought, however,
from what had been stated by the Noble Secretary of
State, that Ministers would advise his Majesty to send
down a Message expressive of his Majesty's consent.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL observed, that from

the acts of Government it would be seen what ad-
vice himself and his colleagues had given to his Ma-
jesty ; but he begged that Noble Lords would not
draw an inference where there was no act to autho-
rise it.

Lord HOLLAND observed, that the Noble Lord
need not be afraid of an inference, as the conduct of
his Majesty's Ministers was so unaccountable,, that it
was quite impossible to draw an inference from it.
Adjourned till to-morrow (this day).

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The third reading of Sir Samuel Rom'llys Law Bills was pui
off till to-morrow.

. . -
A conversation took place on the second reading of the Porte- tition of a more moderate nature being presented.—
mouth Water Works Bill, which was negatived without a di.
vision.
Mr. P. MOORB obtained leave to bring in a Bill for rebuild-
lag the late Drury-lane Theatre Royal, under the conditions
therein mentioned.
Mr. ROSE obtained leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the duty
paid on Foreign Linens in certain cases. This appeared to refer
to the Linens varehotssed at the time of passing the former /let.
MIDDLESEX PETITION.
Mr. BYNG presented a petition from the Freehol-
ders of the County of Middlesex, agreed to at their
at Meeting, for taking into consideration the late
votes of' the House of Commons in the case of Sir
.134 He was of opinion, that the Meeting having been
unanimous, afforded no reason for the Horse receiv.
ing a Petition couched in unbecoming language.--
Onlooking at the words of this Petition, he did not
find in them any thing so objectionable as to induce
him on that account to say that the Petition must be
rejected. He agreed it would have been better that
the objectionable paragraph had been omitted ; but
still it was the duty of Parliament to open wide its
doors to Petitions. When Gentlemen considered tle
way in which the representation in that House was,
Fraricis Burdett, and the new and extraordinary pro-
in too many instances, brought about, they must not
ceedings had thereupon.
be surprised that words were used that they did not
The Petition being brought up, was read at the
like ; and if steps were not taken to render the sys-
table : tern better and more seemly, they must not be sur-
" To the Honovrable the Commons of the United Kin
sanin of prised if the complaints became louder and more Ire-
Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled. (cent. The Petition had a proper prayer, and as ,
" The Petition of the Freeholders of Middlesex agreed to to the request they made was one which it was compe-
fell county this 26th day of April, 1610,
tent for any Petitioners to make to that House, he
" Sheweth, That we have observed with concern that in the
cases of Mr. John Gale Jones and Sir Francis Burdett, Bart. your was of opinion they should not quarrel about the
House assumed and exercised a power unknown to the law aid words. The words were undoubtedly not agreeable,
unwarranted by the constitution. but still, if they contained a truism, were they on that
" Your Speaker s warrant has been executed by military farce account not to be taerated ? Was it a libel on that
—an Englishman's house, his sanctuary, has been violated, and the
blood of unoffending citizens has been shed in the streets. House, after what had lately passed there, that Seats
" Assinst the existence as well as the exercise of this power, (in it were bought and sold ? And should that be
we solemnly protest—a protest the more necessary because your' called a libel which was a truism ? As long as the
votes in its support are entered on your Journals—not so the letter Nouse suffered the practice to prevail, they muss
of Sir Francis Burdett to your Speaker, denying you such juris- •
diction.
submit to pocket the insult of being told that it ex-
"in the early part of this reign, in the case of Mr. Wilkes, the isted. It was impossible, so long as this system ex-
rights of this county and ef the nation were repeatecny and grossly isted, that persons applying to that House, could
violated by the House of Commons. At length the law triumphed. address it with all the respect it might otherwise rea-
After a struggle 'of nearly twenty years the House abandoned the " 131 y expect and would obtain.
pretensions they had arrogated,
and ' expunged' from their Jour-
1 sona
hats 4 all their declarations, orders, and resolutions, as being sub- Mr. DAVIS GIDDY did not intend when he
versive of the rights of the whole body of the Electors of this came into the House to have said a word on this sub-
Kingdom.' lo o ect. - He agreed that the doors of the House ought
" You have during your pleasure deprived the citiaens of West- ,_ _
e opened widely to receive the Petitions of all
West-
minster of their share in the representation, and the public at
large of the exertions of a faithful servant, in whose ability, firm.. who chose to apply to them in a regular and proper
ness, and integrity, they pre-eminently 'confide. manner. All the argument on this head, however,
" We view with JeaLln4Y and elliPiettm the shutting uP sir I must fall to the ground, the moment it appeared that
Francis Burdett in prison when the attention of the nation is di.
any application of the kind was_not really a petitjpp,
rected with atntiety to his intended Motion for a RifOrm in the
.ht, in a covert man-
Representation of the People in your
Honourable
House—that but a paper, by wl}iat it was fought,
Hew is which the Mac In seats has peen vowed in the sue of Aet, to Insult the House. The Peutioners4 in this case,

had dressed op as a petition, a paper, not by
they expected any redress of grievances, but by
they presumed to dictate to the House what
chose to think right. As to any Reform, or ,
to any alteration in the constitution of that House,
representation to a delegation, he had no hese,'
trea
in declaring his opinion, that it would not tend,
advantage of the people. He objected, therefore,
Gentlemen taking that for granted which had
been proved, and was not conceded to them.
the words of the petition, they wese disrespec.fil
the highest degree. It did not contain such a pea,
as the petitioners could, by possibility, erpected
granted ; and to allow it to lie on the ;hi! •
only lead to the preienting of others still men
sive. The House must make a stand against
practice at some time or other, and it was btee,
do so now than at any after period. It had been,
to be a respectable meeting, but Gentlemen
enough of what was to be expected from MK!!
ings in the neighbourhood of populous towns
the spirit of this meeting might be judged of
their refusing to hear a Gentleman of the '
respectability, Member of that House (Mr. le
on his attempting to deliver his sentiments
subject. This circumstance did not add much ,
argument derived from the unanimity of the meet,
Mr. HAWKINS BROWNE thought the •
of the petition chewed that it was not the (Vie
the petition to procure the liberation of Sir Fr.
Burdett, a Reform in Parliament, or any othe-
cific object. The petition was only made the •
of conveying a gross insult to the House, and ,
matical denial of its 'privileges. The petition
Westminster was capable of receiving a more'
able interpretation. The present was nut.
becoming in that House to 'be-moderate, but
moderatioa produced only insult, then it became
House to assert its dignity. He thought the '
might on a former occasion have adopted the
moderate course ; but now it was necessary for
to support !heir proceedings.
Mr. HIBBERT said, that the moment was
deal importance, on which he strongly felt he
speak. The petitioners were not, like the majv
that House, convinced of the constitutional
of ie. privileges. They, on the contrary, dens
auth tits', and more particularly, questioned
gality of those acts in which it had recently
'erteJ. Allowance was to be made for men warm
su. h a subject—but he should be sorry if the
which might have found its way into some expressiom
of their petition, should be caught by the Hi
commenting upon those expressions. The
which had beet so much objected to, would be
at last to be no more than the most brief, abrui
somewhat coarse declaration of the opinion ,
petitioners, which they must either have indull
have no ground for petitioning at all. There
another consideration, and he begged to address
the feelings of the House. This question of pre
of Parliament was, it seemed, one, which couli
be easily submitted to any other tribunal than
Parliament itself. In proportion then as the subjects
of the Realm found the means of its legal discussion
narrowed, in that proportion should Parliament oper,
the doors to atty appeal made to itself upon the sub.
lect, and not too scrupulously weigh the terms in
which such an appeal was made. For these reasons
he should vote for receiving the petition.
Mr. BARHAM wished, as the present was a qua.
don of very great importance, that time. should be
elven for 'consideration, and that there should be a
fuller ste.ndance of the House than there was at that
moment. If such a discussion had been expected,
ire was satisfied the attendance would have been
fuller. He should therefore move that the debate
be adjourned till to-morrow. If pressed for an im-
i mediate opinion, he must say, that he was against
receiving the petition. An Honourable Alderman
was against refusing the petition, from not knowing
. where the matter would end. He thought the pre-
sent petition, instead of being worded carelessly, was
worded most carefully ; and receiving it would only
bring on another more aggravated than the present.
Wh lever the House did feel itself called on to stop,
it it did not adopt that course at present, it would be
Kith something worse than the petition now under
consideration. He thought, however, that a deci.
sion would be come to with more effect and weight
when there was a fuller attendance, and greater lei-
sure had been given for deliberation. He albo
thought that the rejection of the petition ought to be
followed up with some Resolutions exprbsive of the
grounds on which the House had proceeded. He
concluded by moving that the debate be adjourned
till to-morrow.
Mt. GRENFELL seconded the motion of ad-
journment.
Mr. H. SUMNER conceived the paper now nie
der coruideration had nothing in it of a petition but
the name. Such a practice ought to be checked, us
liming; and he saw no occasion for delaying till to•
morrow what they ought to do to-day. A Worthy
Alderman (Combe) was afraid of the consequences
of refusing such a petition. For his own pant he
had no fear of the kind.
Mr. Alderman COMBE, in explanation, said, he
had never expressed any fear for the consequences,
and begged the Hon. Gentleman not so much to mis•
understand him.
Mr. LAMBE was of opinion, the House had al•
ready gone too far to talk of stopping in li,,ine. They
had already received a Petition, which was at least
sufficiently strong, He could not is; his own mind
conceive any thing stronger than the petition by the
inhabitants of Westminster, who had veld the House
that they had offered by their proceedings, a pore
indignity to them. He thought the House had better
agree to the proposition of his Hon. Friend (Mr. aIT•
ham}, that they might deliberately consider how tat
they would allow that power to be stretched. which
certain persons had instilled into the mind* or the
misguided people they had a right to carry to any
length, by filling them with wild and absurd ideas of
their rights. Though he was a friend to petitioning,
this was a period at which he was inclined to think
it ought to be viewed with more than usual strictness.
-There was a disposition to deny that the House, as it
was at present constituted, afforded a legal represen-
tation of the people. Against such a doctrine he
protested, and contended that it was equal to the dis-
charge of those duties which it owed to the country
in th* eonaidqration of its affairs both abroad and at
hqme. He felt infinitely more disposed, on a ques-
tion of this kind, to coalesce with those who outer

r whiat
f 'Aids .
In they
r ratites
louse, a
eskation
Id toast
had net
As m
reitil
a !nye
tad to be
it
In' Oita.
St s itch a
beta,' to
bete u.:4
nen sass
el meet.
mu, and
of from
! highest
hlelrish)
s on the
,ch to OA.
meetingg.
to words
object o:
r frit uci‘
her spe.
e vehicle
d a dog.
ion from
e favour.
It wag
out when
teirrte the
lie House
the more
for them
vas of cri-
he must
tajority cf
authority
mied that
ed the le.
been as.
rarm with
t warmth
xpressione
House in
e passage
be found
rupt, and
on of the
Julged of
here was
dress it to
privilege
could not
lan that of
e subject
discussion
pent open
n the sub.
terms in
rse reasor4
ras a qua.
should be
ould be a
ras at that
expected,

•ea this opinion, than With those who thought the
Representative System entirely corrupt, and that it
s ,011.,i be destroyed. He agreed that the terms in
vich the Petition was conceived were extremely of.
usive,but they might be found, at the same time, to
tition of what had found its way into so
brr;:nnylY Peotahererpetitions. He thought it better, there-
f,,r.„ to assent to
the proposition of his Hon. Friend,
el
it the debate should be adjourned.
Mr. WARDLE could not agree that any insult
meant to be offered to the House by the present
pe ition. The Petition which had been received from
Atrestminster contained no prayer; the present con-
toed not onlya prayer, but an earnest request that
with the object of the Peti-
the House would comply
t;;,,21, He had used the freedom in that House to go
' full length the Petitioners now did, in expressing
opinion.
ttheeirThese sentiments he still, with sub-
mission to the House, entertained. He had presumed
to deny that Parliament had the right which it had
assumed and exercised. He had been allowed to ex-
holders that opinion
ddle s ;
ex and he submitted that the Free-
same right to express
ofMi
their opinion on the subject. It was quite possible by
strong Resolutions to insult the House in the grossest
planner, while, at the same time, the Petition to be*
resented to them should be conceived in a way which
;night escape notice. The Petitioners here had only
d•diy declared their own opinions, as subjects of
car. t
this country were entitled to do. To his ( Mr. War-
dle's) mind, these sentiments p
were true throughout.
pe trussed, therefore, that the etitton would he re-
ceived.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE was of opinion the peti-
tion ought to received, because he did not think
the words were such a departure from the respect to
the House as should warrant them in rejecting it.--
If the Petitioners were of opinion that the House had,
acted illegally, he did not see in what other terms
they could have expressed themselves, than by decla-
'ng that such was their opinion. If the House had
actedr thus illegally, it would be a grievance which it '
was the duty of the people of England to come for:
ward and complain of, in the most determined though
becoming language. Great authorities had their
doubts on this subject, though he confessed he had
none. He was for receiving the present petition,
however, because he thought it not so offensive as the
petition from the inhabitants of Westminster, which
nail been received. He wished, at all events, that
the House should have an opportunity of looking
into the language of other petitions. It would be
unfortunate it, at such a period as the present, they
should treat the petitioners coming before them with
greater severity than their predecessors had. been ac-
customed to do.
Mr. STEPHEN thought the words of the Petition
conveyed a studied insult to the House. It would be
strange if this House, the Majesty of the People, was
the only Body in the kingdom which Gould be libel.
led with impunity ; nay, which receiving Petitions in.
salting to themielves, must be compelled to become
. the servile instruments of their own degradation and
disgrace. If the House were insulted by Rescantions,
• as an Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Wardle) had sup-
• posed, even those who denied their right to be judges
in their own case must admit that they might go into
a Court of Law, and there obtain justice ; but if they
once received on their own table a-Petition, in whitb
they ucre insulted, no such redress could be obtained.
He agreed, however, with his Learned Friend who
spoke last, in thinking that the right of petitioning
should not be broken in upon till every Gentleman had
an opportunity of reading over the Petition and cons-
paring the objectionable paragraphs with the context.
He recommended to the House therefore to accede ,
to the motion for adjourning the debate till to mor-
row. So delicate a question as the right of petitioning
Should be discussed with every degree of &liberal-
Con, and in as full a Hause as possible. It appeared
to him that Gentlemen should not present petitions
in which they saw any thing very objectionable.—
Why should they be bound to comply with the wishes
of their constituents in what was wrong, more than
an advocate should be in a Court of Justice, in favour
this client ? He did not conceive that a Gentleman
should continue a Member of a Body which he des-
pised. If there were any Gentlemen in that House
who thought them so constituted as some persons re- ,
presented, he was surprised they did not resign their
feats. So long, -however, as they continued in the ,
House, they ought not to suffer themselves co be made
the means of insulting it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
seeing those who agreed with hinrinciple thought
a delay necessary, though he himself was not a cne•
vert to that Gpinion, could have no objection to ac-'
ceding to it. Now he was on his legs, he begged to ;
trplaiu the difference between the two petitions, and
spew that the Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lambe)
N'4s not correct in the deduction he had made. The
pound on which the former petition was received
was repeatedly stated in the debate, and was precisely
this—that as the sentence containing the accusation
of a gross insult being offered, might apply to .the
. officer executing the Speaker's warrant, it Was but
fair to put the most favourable construction upon a
petition from the subject. He agreed that they must
receive petitions against their acts, but, at the same
time, they would take care in what language they
were couched.. They would take-care that they were,
petitions, and not papers to dictate to the House what
they ought to do. They might ask -a revision of the
:lament of the Legislature ; but they were not. as
in the present case, to set up a petitioner's authority
against the authority of the House, and call intpen.
ously for a change, not fora reconsider:Alois. While
hewould,
. 7 therefore, acceded to the adjournment, he
be ready either now, or at any other time, to contend'
that this petition, from its language, scope, and de-
sign, was sdch, as they neither could, nor ought to
admit to lie on their table, as a perpetual
Sir J. NEWPORT thought the whole Petition
should be taken together, and that it.-was not the lair
way of judging to extract a single objectionable para-
graph. Here the Petition had a prayer, which was
not the case with the Westminster Petition. The
tact of the Petition having a prayer should go a great
v:ay in shelving that there was no intention of offering
an insult • o the House.
Mr. BYNG h d no objection to the adjournment.
He believed the more t me that was given to the con-
sideration of th Petition, there would be the less
doubt that it ought to be received. The Petitioners
'were of opinion that the House had assumed a power
vbich it
possess, and this being the case they