Star.
London, England, 1810-06-14 00:00:00

MIDDLYSICX PSTITION.

Mr. BYNG presented the Petition of the Freehol-
ders of Middlesex, voted at the Hackney Meeting on
Friday last. The Petition having been read, Mr.
Byng moved, that it do lie on the table.
Mr. Secretary RYDER rose to oppose the motion.
He felt it unnecessary to enter into any detail on the
various topics of the petition just read, or to repeat
4tety of the arguments opposed to the reception of a
former petition substantially the same. He felt it
only necessary to call the attention of the House to
one prayer of the Petition, which desired that the
House would receive their former petition, which had
been rejected for certain expressions of censure upon
thew conduct of that House, and being couched in lan-
guage so offensive and insulting, that the House was
bound not to receive it. The presenf petition inclu-
ded the substance of the former one, and was in the
same lane; nage.
Here Mr. BYNG rose, and assured the Right Ho.
nourable Secretary that the language was not the
same, and that the petition differed in many instances.
Mr. Secretary RYDER 'maintained, that if the
words were not precisely the same, the petition con-
tained the same censure upon the conduct of the
House, and was expressed in language equally objec-
tionable ; the former petition was debated in the
House on two days, and rejected by a considerable
majority. There was another passage in the petition
now offered which had caught his ear. It was that
which told the House that the ancestors of the Peti-
tioners had claimed, and insisted upon, the right of
petitioning, and that a rejection of their petition was
a violation of that right ; and that if the seven Bishops
who in the detested reign of James 11. had told the
King he acted contrary to the law, and in subversion
of the rights of the people, surely they had a right to
hold a like language to those whom they considered
to be their representatives, if they held the like opi-
.nion of their conduct. He should vote against the
reception of the petition.
Mr WHITBREAD said he was not in the House
when the Petition was read ; but if it was couched in
the same language as the one already rejected, lie
certainly should not be for receiving it. From the
speech of the Right Honourable Gentleman, how-
ever, he could understand his principal &ejection to
he, that the Petition complained that the House of
Commons had subverted the rights of the people, and
that such language was not for the Petitioners to offer
or the House to bear. But was there any thing new
in this assertion ? Was it not notorious that the House
of Commons had, at different times, subverted the
rights of the people ? Had it not happened over and
over again ? He would contend for and maintain
the right of the people to express to the House their
opinions, whenever they conceived it violated their
rights. If the people petitioned to repeal an Act
which they conceived and stated to be a violation of
their rights, what would that be but a censure on the
decision of the House of COMMONS ? and he would
maintain that an expression of mere censure upon the
decision of the House was no ground for rejecting a
petition. The whole conduct of the House, from the
committal of Sir Francis Burdett to the present mo.
merit, on the subject of petitions, had been, in his opi-
nion, inconsistent and full of caprice : for many of
the petitions which it had received had contained ex-
pressions much more exceptionable than those it had
rejected : and unless those Right Hon. Gentlemen
who opposed this Petition would establish same stan-
dard of criticism for the language of petitinn,it would
be impossible for petitioners to know what language
they were to dopt.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
supported the objections of Mr. • Ryder. He dis-
claimed any thing like the fastidious criticism imput-
ed by the Honourable Member to Gentlemen on his
side of the Houle, as to the particular language of
Petitions ; and said they were more anxious to excuse
intemperate expressions, and indtcorous terms, in
order to avoid the necessity-of rejection, when it was
not indispensably called for by the respect which the
House owed to its own dignity.
The Petition was then rejected without a division-
. SUIFYIELD PETITION.
I Mr. WHITBREAD then presented a petition,'
signed by 6000 inhabitants of the town of Sheffield.
It was on the same subject as the Middlesex Petition,
and was opposed upon similar grounds by Mr. Ryder,
'who thought it impossible the House could rzceive a
petition as exceptionable as that which they had just
rejected. • . .
. Lord, MILTON 444 that although his own senti-
ments were kno*n to diet* from those of this petition,
•
'and thtmgh'tha eitisiOlia*in it *ate not so guarded

tght n. ....-
consistent with the respect the House owed to the peo-
ple who approached that House with their petitions,
to adjourn this discussion till to-morrow, and he moved
accordingly.
I General TARLETON supported the same idea,
and regretted that the Right Honourable Secretary
for the Home Department, who lately filled a situa-
Van in a Military Office, should seem to have brought
with him into that House, the principles of his mili-
tary education ; and to have adopted a conduct more
calculated to support a military despotism than the
principles of a free constitution.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL defended the
conduct of Mr. Ryder, and opposed the Petition
upon the same grounds. He said, it contained the.
same language as the pamphlet of Sir Francis Bur:
dett, for which the House had committed him to the
Tower.

Mr. STEPHEN opposed the Petition, and com-
plained of some comments therein made upon the
speeches of two Members of that House (the Speaker
and Mr. Ponsonby) respecting the imProper mode of
obtaining seats.
Mr. WH ITB RE AD supported the Petition, -and
contended that latitude of expression must be aildwact
to Petitioners; or hew should they describe. 'the
grievances of which they compliiincdi That the j
Privileges of the Haase. of Commons *embed in
doubt, no man could question. A Committee of the
House had reported their opinion that- the Speaker
should appear and defend himself before *the Court
of King's Bench, upon an action against him found-
ed on a denial of these privileges ; and the question
now awaited the decision of a legal Tribunal.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said, the Honourable Gentleman had used the very
same argument on the Middlesex Election Petition ;
and he must oppose the motion, as no reasun had been
given to chew that this petition was not as insulting
to the House as any of the former vThich had been
presented.
Mr. W. SMITH spoke at some length in favour
of the Petition, and nearly on the same grounds as
Mr. Whitbread. _ _ _

Mr. YORKE allowed that the subject had a right
to petition, but at the same time the House had a '
right to reject any petition containing offensive ex-!I
presstons. It seemed to him to be evidently the in- I
tention and system of all the Petitimers, to lessen
and lower that House in the estimation of the public;
and, therefore, they ought to be rejected. He was
convinced the people were under a great delusion
with respect to the privileges of that House ; and he
thought it a fortunate thing, that these privileges
should be confirmed by the Courts of High Record.
Mr. C. WYNNE differed as widely as possible
from the last Speaker, respecting the Law of Parlia-
ment: He denied that the Court of King's Bench,
or the House of Lords, to whom it would most pro-
bably be carried by appeal, had any right to judge
or take cogniaance et at ; and that nothing but an
Act of Parliament could divest the House of those
privileges with which it was invested. The question
being called for, a division took place. For reeeiv•
•
ing the Petition Ik—against it 61..