and insatiable gulph of their lordship's judicature, which would swallow up both the prerogatives of the crown and the liberties of the people; and further, that their lordships had assumed and exercised judicature contrary to the known laws and customs of parliament, and tending to the overthrow of the rights and liberties of the people of England; and as to the number of signatures to their former Pe 28th year of the reign of the same king Edward the 3d, it is amongst other things enacted, that no man, of what estate or condition soever he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor disinherited without being brought in to answer by due process of law; and by another statute, made in the 42d year of the reign of the said king Edward the 3d, it is enacted, that no man be put to answer without pre-tition, the petitioners are guided by the sentment before justices or matter of record, or by due process and writ original according to the old law of the land, and if any thing be done to the contrary it shall be void in law, and holden for ever, and that the petitiorers were therefore justified in asserting, that the committal to prison of Mr. John Gale Jones and sir F. Burdett in punishment for libel without trial by juries is a practice unknown to the law, and unwarranted by the constitution, and that the Speaker's warrant has been executed by military force; an Englishman's house,his sanctuary, has been violated, and the blood of unoffending citizens has been shed in the streets, has been proved at the bar of the House, and by two verdicts of wilful murder against certain of his Majesty's life guards; and that the letter of sir F. Burdett to the Speaker, denying the jurisdiction of the House, has been directed not to be entered on the Journals of the House, will appear by reference to their printed votes; and that in the early part of this reign, in the case of Mr. Wilkes, the rights of this country and of the nation, were grossly violated by the House of Commons, that at length the law triumphed, that, after a struggle of nearly twenty years, the House abandoned the pretensions they had arrogated, and expunged from their Journals all their declarations, orders, and resolutions, as being subversive of the rights of the whole body of electors of this kingdom, are facts recorded in the Journals of the House; and that the petitioners have now fully established the truth of the allegations contained in their rejected Petition, and which they know not how to set forth in any but the plain and honest language they have used, language in which they feel justified by precedent, and by the example of the House, who, in the reasons given to the Lords against their claim to appellant jurisdiction, informed their lordships that they were contriving by all methods to bring the determination of liberty and property into the bottomless VOL. XVII, law of the land, which directs that no more than twenty signatures should be affixed to any Petition to the King or either House of Parliament; and against the existence as well as the exercise of the power assumed by the House, the petitioners did in their Petition, and do now, solemnly protest, and they are satisfied that in so protesting they are justified by numerous precedents, particularly by a Petition of the Electors of Westminster inserted in the Journals of the 2d day of February 1785, wherein they solemnly protest against the origin and principle of certain Resolutions of the House, as contrary to the spirit and practice of the constitution, to the plainest provisions both of common and statute law, and to the rights and privileges of the electors of Great Britain; and that the petitioners assure the House they had no intention to degrade the House, they knew that no language they could possibly use could degrade the House; by its own actions alone can it be degraded or exalted in the minds of the people of England; and that the petitioners are firmly attached to, and will uphold, the form of government, cemented by the blood, and established by the wisdom, of their ancestors; they revere the kingly office, they respect the House of Peers, and are of opinion that a House really representing the Commons of the United Kingdom would secure all the blessings of our free constitution; and that persons fairly elected to a seat in such a House would have an honour conferred upon them greater than any which kings or emperors can bestow: how far the House is such a representatation of the people, and how many of the honourable members are thus elected, the petitioners leave to the consideration of the House; although they cannot but remark that when they find on their Journals, uncontradicted and unredressed, that seats in the House are as notoriously rented and bought as standings for cattle at a fair; that the House 2 R making the total number of patrons altogether only 154, who return a decided majority of the House; that no less than 150 of the honourable members owe their elections entirely to the interference of peers; and that 40 peers, in defiance to the Resolutions of the House, have possessed themselves of so many burgage tenures, and obtained such an absolute and uncoutrouled command in many very small boroughs in the kingdom as to be enabled, by their own positive autho of Commons does not fully and fairly rePresent the people of England; that the elective franchise is so partially and unequally distributed, that a majority of the House is elected by less than a two hundredth part of the male population; that the right of voting is regulated by no uniform or rational principle; that Rutland, the smallest, and Yorkshire, the largest county, return the same number of Representatives; and that Cornwall, which, by the census taken by order of Parliament, appears to contain a popularity, to return $1 of the honourable memtion of 188,269, returns as many members bers; that seats in the House are sought to the House as the counties of York, Rut- for at a most extravagant and increasing land and Middlesex, which, by the same rate of expence, and that the means taken census, contain 1,693,377; that Cornwall by candidates to obtain, and by electors and Wilts, containing 373,376 persons,send to bestow the honour of a seat in the more Borough members to parliament House, evidently appear to have been inthan Yorkshire, Lancashire, Warwickshire, creasing in a progressive degree of fraud Middlesex, Worcestershire, and Somerset- and corruption; and that when the petishire, united, which contain 2,971,026; tioners learn, that a distinct charge having that 70 of the honourable members are been made in the House against lord Casreturned by 35 places where the elec- tlereagh and Mr. Perceval, members tions are notoriously mere matter of form; thereof, and then two of his Majesty's mithat, in addition to the 70 so chosen, 90 nisters, of having sold a seat therein, the more of the honourable members are House refused to institute any inquiry, elected by 46 places, in none of which and that trafficking in seats in the House the number of electors exceed-50; that, has been avowed to be as notorious as the in addition to 160 so elected, 37 more of sun at noon day; and when in addition the honourable members are elected by to these circumstances, they hear the de19 places, in none of which the number claration of the Speaker delivered in the of electors exceeds 100; that in addition House, that the question then before them to the 177 honourable members so chosen, was no less than this, whether seats in 52 more are returned by 26 places, in none this House shall be henceforth publicly of which the number of voters exceeds saleable, a proposition at the sound of 200; that in addition to the 249 so elect- which our ancestors would have startled ed, 20 more are returned for counties in with indignation, but a practice, which, Scotland by less than 100 electors each, in these days, and within these walls, in and 10 for counties in Scotland by less utter oblivion of every former maxim and than 250 each; that in addition to the feeling of parliament, has been avowed 279 so elected, 13 districts of burghs in and justified; when they remark these Scotland not 100 electors each, and two things, the petitioners cannot but believe, districts of burghs, not containing 25 that the constitution has been dreadfully each, return 15 more of the honourable impaired; and they therefore repeat their members: that in this manner 294 of the prayer, that the House will follow the exhonourable members are chosen, which ample of their predecessors, and expunge being a decided majority of the entire all their declarations, orders and resolu House of Commons, are enabled to decide tions relating to Mr. John Gale Jones and all questions in the name of the whole sir F. Burdett, as tending to the subverpeople of Great Britain; that 84 indivi- sion of our liberties, and to the introduc. duals do by their own immediate autho- tion of military despotism, and to recal rity send 157 of the honourable members sir F. Burdett to the service of the coun to parliament; that in addition to these try in parliament, that he may there en157 honourable members 150 more, mak-force that reform which last session he so ing in the whole 307, are returned to the House not by the collective voice of those whom they appear to represent, but by the recommendation of 70 powerful individuals added to the $4 before-mentioned, and powerfully recommended, and which in the opinion of the petitioners, is absolutely necessary for the stability and honour of the throne, and the safety and well being of the people; and the petitioners fur ther pray, that their former petition may now be laid on the table of the House." Mr. Byng then 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 any 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 the conduct of that House, and being couched in language so offensive and insulting, that the House was bound not to receive it. The present petition included the substance of the former one, and was in the same language. Mr. Byng rose, and assured the right hon. secretary, that the language was not the same, and that the petition differed in many instances. was not proper 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. Suppose, as in the year 1759, a complaint was made to the House by a member, that his fishery had been violated by a person who had no authority to meddle with it, and that such a person should be committed for the invasion of the rights of property, would any man say that such a commitment was not a violation of the rights and liberties Mr. Secretary Ryder maintained, that if of the subject? Certainly not; it would the words were not precisely the same, the be impossible to say that it was not a viopetition contained the same censure upon lation of the liberties of the people, and the conduct of the House, and was ex- should a Petition be rejected by the House pressed in language equally objectionable: of Commons, because it stated such an act the former petition was debated in the to be a violation of the liberties of the House on two days, and rejected by a con- people? No, it should not. He saw no siderable majority. There was another right that the House of Commons possessed passage in the petition now offered which to refuse receiving such a petition as this, had caught his ear. It was that which merely because it stated that they had told the House that the ancestors of the violated the rights and liberties of the petitioners had claimed, and insisted upon, people. Whether the petitioners were the right of petitioning, and that a re- right or wrong in their opinion as to the jection of their petition was a violation of House having violated, or not having vio that right; and that if the seven bishops lated, the rights and liberties of the people, who in the detested reign of James 2 had was immaterial; it was enough that they told the king that he acted contrary to the thought so; for, if they thought so, they law, and in subversion of the rights of the had a right to say so to the House of Compeople, surely they had a right to hold the mons. If an act of Parliament were passed like language to those whom they con- to enact injustice, the people had a right sidered to be their representatives, if they to petition for its repeal, and that on the held the like opinion of their conduct. He ground of its injustice, and so to state it; should vote against the reception of the pe- and, therefore, if they had a right so to tition. state upon an act of Parliament, how much more had they the right to petition against the deed of only one branch of the legis lature. The people had a right to petition the King, to petition the House of Lords, and to petition the House of Com mons, separately and distinctly, and to state that any act was a violation of justice, if they felt it to be such. said that the House of Commons had violated the rights and liberties of the people. 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, he certainly should not be for receiving it. From the speech of the right hon. gent. however, he could understand his principal objection to be, that the petition complained that the House of Commons had subverted the rights of the people, and that such language This petition Had not the House of Commons so done | in many instances? and had it not recently done so; upon its power to do so it was not his business to discuss this day; but he had maintained, that the people had a right to say, if they felt that the House of Commons had violated the rights and liberties of the people, nor was it necessary they should ask leave of the right hon. gent. to do so: but this right of petitioning would be annihilated, if this petition was rejected on the ground stated by the right hon. gent. Now the ground of the present petition, as far as it related to the case of sir F. Burdett, was extremely clear, and the conduct of the House had been full of caprice, in the manner it had received and rejected petitions upon that subject, for it had received some petitions the language of which was stronger than the language of others which it had rejected no fixed rule had been adopted, and while there was this caprice about the receiving of petitions, the people would not know what language they should adopt in framing their petitions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer contended that the hon. gent. who had just preceded him in this debate, had no right to say, that the House of Commons had been too critical as to the words of any petition before it was received; on the contrary, the House had been ready to disclaim, as he did now, all idea of being critical as to the language of a petition; but the House had formed its judgment on petitions on a general view of them, and had drawn their conclusions as well as they were able. But when matters were clear, and when petitions were evidently framed with a view of really insulting the House, they had rejected such petitions. Such, he contended, to be the case with respect to the petition now before the House, and, therefore, he thought the House ought to reject it. It might be perfectly true that the House, in its desire to facilitate the reception of petitions, might have been frequently induced to overlook expressions, which, had they been carefully attended to and scrutinized, would have caused the rejection of such petitions; but the general inclination of the House had been, not to be too nice in finding fault with the manner of wording petitions in other words, the House had almost gone to sleep, as it were, upon their own dignity in the refusal to receive petitions, and the House had frequently received such petitions as might with pro priety have been rejected. That, however, was no reason at all why a petition, improperly worded, should not be reject ed, and this should always be the case when it was manifestly the intention of the party framing the petition, to insult the House. The parties in such a case could never, with propriety, be said to be disappointed. Now, as to the tenour of the present petition, it was in that language which the House had already determined not to receive-with this notice, that the House would not receive this language, since it had refused to do so already, the petitioners persisted in using it. In some recent cases, petitioners had mollified their language, and their petitions had been received in the second instance, although refused in the first: but this petition was so far otherwise, that whatever there was of difference between this and the last petition, this was made more objectionable; and indeed, the very request that the House should receive that which the House had rejected, was, of itself, an extremely unreasonable request; and, therefore, he had no hesitation in saying, that, in his view of this matter, the present petition ought to be rejected. The question that the petition do lie on the table, was then negatived without a division. [PETITION FROM SHEFFIELD FOR THE RELEASE OF SIR F. BURDETT, &c.] Mr. Whitbread presented an Address and Petition of the freeholders and inhabitants of the town and neighbourhood of Sheffield, assembled at a public meeting exceeding in number upwards of 6,000, held the 6th day of June, 1810, setting forth, "That, convinced as the petitioners unalterably are, that the House is one of the main pillars of our admirable constitution (to which they are sincerely attached), it is with unfeigned regret they are compelled to consider that the House have departed, in some respects, from the peculiar design of their institution, by combining the executive with the legislative functions, an evil which the penetrating Montesquieu foresaw might befal this happy country, and of which he predicted, the petitioners fear, too truly, that should it ever come to pass, it would effect the speedy decay and eventual destruction of our liberties; and that, without recurring to other acts of the House, which have appeared to evince a disre gard for the sentiments of their constitu bates, no interruption given to their access to the House of Commons, nor any re ents, and to indicate that the House are only nominally their representatives, the petitioners will at present confine them-straint upon their persons attempted; in selves to the cases of Mr. John Gale Jones and sir Francis Burdett, not without some hope that the House will regret the severity of their proceedings towards those freeborn subjects of our lawful Sovereign, and will feel bound to restore them to their liberty, of which the petitioners conceive they have been unconstitutionally deprived; and that they are well aware the House has frequently claimed and exercised the right of imprisoning persons, members of the House of Commons, and also others not being members thereof; but the petitioners cannot help regarding such right as opposed to the law of the land and subversive of their personal security; and that, on former occasions, when the claim and exercise of the privilege in question have been resisted, the House, by adjourning beyond the time fixed for continuing the discussion upon such privilege, or by forbearing to persist in the resolutions they had passed, have frequently shewn the uncertain tenure of such claims, and tacitly admitted their inexperience; it is because the exercise of this assumed privilege has been generally accompanied with much lenity, that it has not been viewed with that deep abhorrence which the petitioners conceive its undefined and obnoxious nature is calculated to excite, and which has been described in the truest and most decisive language by that friend of the people, that firm supporter of injured innocence, sir Francis Burdett; they beg leave respectfully to state to the House, that they coincide entirely with the learned argument used by the patriotic baronet, and deem it unanswered and unanswerable; and that, while therefore they fully adnit the propriety of the House removing impediments to the freedom of debate; while they read:ly acquiesce in their right of punishing witnesses at their bar for contempt and prevarication; while they object to no privileges which have for their sole design the prevention and removal of every obstacle to the discussion of those important subjects, and the pursuit of those necessary enquiries which so frequently occupy the House; yet, in cases like those of Mr. John Gale Jones and sir Francis Burdett, cases wherein no violence was offered to their liberty of speech, no opposition made to their de such cases, the petitioners are decidedly of opinion, that they ought not to acknowledge their privilege; and they do most solemnly call upon the House to renounce what they must deem an improper assumption of needless power; and they earnestly beseech the House, to consider that Britons have rights which they ought never to relinquish, rights bought with the best blood of their forefathers, transmitted by them through a long line of patriotic ancestry, and bequeathed as the noblest inheritance to their children; and that for the exercise of one of these unalienable rights, through the medium of a free press, has the House punished two of our countrymen, setting aside the ordinary course of law, and, in their own cause, taking upon themselves the office which the petitioners humbly maintain belongs only to a jury, that of deciding whether a publication be libellous or not; at the same time the petitioners lament to learn, that, in the execution of the Speaker's warrant, undue violence has been used to that law which regards an Englishman's house as his castle; and that, with this needless and terrific stretch of privilege, the petitioners cannot but be dissatisfied, as they feel that not even their own representatives ought on any occasion, to have the right or power of dispensing with the charter of our liberties; and they imagine that they perceive another danger arising from their possession of privileges unlimited by law, which, if it were the sole danger, would prove their impropriety: If the two Houses of Parliament have power to define their own privileges, each may assert such as are incompatible with those of the other, and which, by their clashing interests, may produce the evils of anarchy and civil war; here the petitioners cannot refrain from adverting to certain sentiments said to have been delivered in the House, they mean hints, they had almost said directions, given to the judges of the land, as to their future conduct in the actions brought by sir F. Burdett against the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Serjeant at Arms; while they regard those sentiments with indignation, they trust that the judges are so independent as to treat all such intimations, wherever and by whomsoever they may have been uttered, with deserved contempt, and that the court of King's bench will satisfy the |