Mr. Dundas said, that in the case of Mr. Horne Tooke the House went upon the idea that, being a petition complaining of an undue return, they were bound by the act of parliament to receive it, whatever might be its contents: though even in that case he was of a different opinion.

All

tition, said, that "seats for legislation person charged with a libel upon this pewere as notoriously rented as the stand-tition. What would then be the case? ings for cattle at a fair." If ever there Why, that the House had rejected a petiwas disrespectful language it was this, and tion that was an innocent publication. On yet the petition which contained it was the other hand, if the House rejected this received. petition as an insult upon its dignity, it would follow, as a matter of course, that, to preserve that dignity, they ought to punish those who had offered to insult it. What then would be their situation? Why, a jury might acquit the persons so accused, and then the House would be subject to the imputation of being too tenacious of its dignity, and too inattentive to the rights of its constituents. these inconveniences would be avoided by receiving the petition. Nor were the journals of the House without precedent upon this subject. He believed that in 1783 a petition was received much bolder and more irregular in its language than the present, where the House was stated to be a corrupt body. He believed that the petition of Mr. Tooke was also as offensive to the dignity of the House as this, or more so. He trusted the majority of the House would see the danger of appearing to contend with its constituents upon the right of petitioning, and would receive this petition. If the opposition to it was persisted in, he must take the sense of the House upon the subject.

Mr. R. Smith thought it his duty to state to the House, that, having observed some passages in the petition which appeared to him rather strongly expressed, he mentioned to some of the most respectable subscribers his suspicion that the House might possibly consider them as disrespectful; and it was but doing justice to them to say, that they wished to have taken out these passages, but did not well see how it could be done, from the difficulty of collecting together no less than 2,500 persons, for by so many was the petition signed; he was, however, sure that they meant nothing disrespectful to the House.

Mr. D. P. Coke admitted that the petition might have stated its object in better language, but he did not believe that it was such as to preclude it from being received. It stated a certain departure in the practical part of the representative system of this constitution. We all knew that there were boroughs for which the crown, and others for which certain noblemen, had the nomination, and he knew they were very honourable men and good members of that House. The House could not consistently refuse to receive this petition unless it was libellous, and if it was they ought to prosecute its authors and advisers for a libel, and upon that point he begged leave to submit a few thoughts to the House. In the first place, he admitted that if the petition was presented to a court of law, the judges might deem it to be a libel; but although formerly the mode of trying libels was to leave the fact to the jury, and the law to the judges; yet we all know that this practice was now altered, and the jury were to decide upon both law and fact. In that view, therefore, he thought it was extremely probable that a jury would acquit any

See Vol. 28, p. 922.

Mr. Ryder was against receiving the petition, merely because it was worded in a disrespectful manner, but by no means because he meant to contest the right of the subject to petition; on the contrary, he was for giving the present petitioners an opportunity of presenting the same prayer to the House, unaccompanied with observations degrading to the House.

Mr. Burke observed, that with regard to the gentlemen who had signed the petition he did not consider them as criminal in any great degree: for the probability was, that the mass of them had never read it. The first question was, whether the House ought or ought not to receive it as it was? The advocates for receiving the petition had desired the House to keep its temper; in this they were very right; because they must be conscious they had taken some pains to provoke the House. The petition itself appeared to him such as that House could not receive consistently with its own dignity, for the audacity of the language was such as should not be tole rated, and the seditious tendency of the whole of it was such as might become in time dangerous if the petition was so far

of the representation, and were clearly of opinion that it was not what it ought to be. Nor could the right hon. gentleman who spoke last be seriously of another. If he was, Mr. Grey said, he would refer the House to what that right hon. gentleman had himself said during the American war. When it was said, why might not America be virtually represented, as well as a great part of this country, “What,” exclaimed the right hon. gentleman, "when they wish to behold the divine face of the British constitution, would you present to them its back, its shameful parts? Would you return to them the slough of our slavery as the model of their freedom?" Or if this was not sufficient, he could refer the House to the

honoured as to be laid on the table of that House without punishing those who had advised the presenting such a petition the better way therefore would be not to receive the petition at all, and thereby to teach those who wished to petition that House, that they must do it in a respectful manner. This petition was only a small part of the fruit of the doctrine which had lately been propagated by certain societies, that England had no constitution. If the House suffered themselves to be thus insulted, they would soon be overpowered by a torrent of insolence running over their table, and they would be despised by the public. Perhaps, indeed, when there was only a little indecorum to be observed in a petition, the good-temper of the House might ex-subsequent language of the present chancuse it, but here indecorum was the small- cellor of the exchequer, before he came est part of the offence; for it went the into office. "That it was notorious that length of denying the authority of that the nabob of Arcot had seven or eight House, as a representative body of the members in that House, and that they did Commons of Great Britain. He knew, not act upon an identity of interest with that in the time of lord George Gordon's the people." After this he would appeal turbulence, the House received as bad a to the House whether they ought to be petition as the present; but that was not very nice in the language which they were a time to be regarded, as an example for to receive from their constituents, and he the present. He saw no reason whatever warned them against the danger of layfor receiving this petition; but he per- ing it down as a principle, that the memceived an infinite number against its re-bers of that House were to be allowed to ception. He took notice of the Society for Constitutional Information, and hinted at others, all of whom, he observed, like the present petition, went to propagate the doctrine that there was no constitution in this country; and the safety of the state required that the authors of such principles should be punished. But this was not the time to inquire into the guilt or innocence of any individual: the question now was simply, whether the petition should be received or rejected, upon which he trusted the House had no difficulty.

Mr. Grey agreed with the right hon. gentleman that this was not the time to debate on the prosecution of any individuals, composing this, that, or any other society, but simply whether the petition should be received or rejected. The persons composing the society to which he had alluded, and proceeding on the principles and acting from the necessity which occasioned its original formation, were persons very well known to the public, and men who had not departed, nor would depart, from the principles they originally professed. They had viewed and maturely considered the present state [VOL. XXX.]

say what their constituents were not to be permitted to state in their petitions.

The Master of the Rolls opposed the receiving of the petition.

Mr. Sheridan, after remarking that nothing was so likely to produce ill temper in certain gentlemen, as referring to the principles they had formerly maintained, hoped the House would not imitate the example of those gentlemen. If they wished to be treated with respect by their constituents, their true course was to treat their constituents with respect. An hon. gentleman had observed, that a society lately instituted for the avowed purpose of obtaining a parliamentary reform, was, as he trusted, come to the conclusion of its labours, as he had heard nothing of it for some time past. He could assure the hon. gentleman, that the socie ty alluded to (the Friends of the People) was neither dead nor sleeping, but in the full vigour of activity. On a former occasion, referring to the borough of Old Sarum, it had been said, that its streets were now only to be distinguished by the different colours of the corn that grew on the soil which it once occupied; and that its only manufacture was the manufacturo

[ 2 H ]

to such extent as appeared to him necessary, they should have his support in this case. A call of the House was a measure, frequently adopted, and he thought there could hardly be a cause for it of more importance than what now occurred. He felt a considerable degree of gratitude to the hon. gentleman who had moved the resolutions, and from whom the proposition came with peculiar propriety; and he hoped, when any alteration, with respect to the regulation of Mr. Grenville's act, should be brought forward, that idea of the right hon. gentleman who spoke last as to an early determination of controverted elections, would be the regulating principle of the new measure. thought the present temporary expedient absolutely necessary, as the prospect of voluntary attendance was lessening every day. With respect to gentlemen in the navy, army, and militia, the season for actual service was approaching, and gentlemen of another profession would be going to attend the assizes.

had heard that day, furnished a most me- | tion of public business was the most imlancholy instance; two gentlemen had sat portant consideration. He believed the in the House for no less than three ses- want of attendance was occasioned by the sions, who had no right whatever to be pressure of the times, particularly as rethere; while the real representatives were garded those members who are officers in during all that time deprived of their the navy, army, or militia; but it became seats. He did not wish to go into the the more necessary to procure the attendsubject of virtual representation; but ance of those who had no excuse. Rigowhat could gentlemen think of a return-rous measures were always invidious, but, ing officer, dividing a parliament with the electors, and having the first three years too, which is the most certain half! It was an evil of the most alarming nature: and he hoped the bill intended to be brought forward by his hon. friend, in the outset of a new parliament, would go to the insuring a determination upon all controverted elections, at the very beginning of a parliament: the public benefit would be immense; and he was certain, gentlemen would find the sitting on one committee at the beginning of a parliament, and being insured from any after trouble, to be far less burthensome than what they were at present subjected to. As to the petitions now before the House respecting rights, he was anxious that they should not go over to another session; because although in any other view, the speedy determination of them was not of so urgent importance, as of the petitions complaining of returns, yet they were an equal interruption to business. As to what had been hinted of the idea of a foreign judicature having cognizance in Mr. Pitt observed, that many members such cases, he highly disapproved of it, who were in the navy, army, or militia, as it was entirely in opposition to all the were at that moment absent on public old and fundamental principles of the service; on pleading that circumstance afconstitution. The decisions of the elec-ter the 7th of March, as the cause of their tion committees were all reported, and he believed there was hardly ever any court of justice, where, among so many decided cases, so little injustice had been done.

He

absence on that day, the House would, no doubt, admit the excuse as fully sufficient; he wished therefore that they might be permitted to plead it before the 7th, and state, as the reason, why they could not attend on that day. This would save them the trouble of coming to town to avoid being taken into custody, and prevent that inconvenience to the public service which would arise from their absence from military duty. The same, he observed, would apply to gentlemen who were to serve on grand juries, and whose presence in their respective counties would be absolutely necessary to the police of their districts, and the administration of justice.

The Speaker said, that a great variety of evils arose from the delay of deciding upon controverted elections, and from the nonattendance of members on days fixed for ballots, and he trusted that, on the present occasion, there would not be much difference of opinion. To every one who felt for the honour of that House, it would be a melancholy reflection, that a returning officer might give a seat there for a period of three years. There surely must be a wish in every gentleman to produce an early and effectual remedy. If the ballots had been made on the days fixed for The resolutions were agreed to by the them, all the petitions would have been committee. On being reported, the discussed. The loss arising to private House agreed to the first four. The other parties was very great, but the interrup-resolutions were ordered to be taken into