verted; that as the tremendous tempest of war is not to be staid at the bidding of those in whose mad and wicked counsels it had its origin, so it is probable the authors of the late war did not intend the magnitude and duration it attained, which magnitude and duration, by the portentous calamities now found in their train, are fast opening the eyes of a deluded nation to the evil deeds of its authors; that in such a condition of the country, the petitioners are shocked to behold contending factions alike guilty of their country's wrongs, alike forgetful, mocking the public patience with repeated, protracted, and disgusting debates on questions of refinement in the complicated and abstruse science of taxation, as if in such refinements, and not in a reformed representation, as if in a consolidated corruption, and not in a renovated constitution, relief were to be found; that in the discussions which they had witnessed, the petitioners see nought but what hath a direct tendency to place the English people in a situation, in which the unrelenting lash of unconstitutional taxation may in all times to come be laid on them, to the utmost extent of human endurance." They concluded by invoking, as the only remedy, a free parliament, elected annually by the whole body of the people.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed the reception of the petition, which appeared to him to present direct libel-a gross attack upon the privileges, the conduct, and character of that House. Mr Brougham, Mr Brand, and Mr Lamb, while they censured the language of the petition, and reprobated the principle of universal suffrage, yet did not wish to limit the power of petitioning, Sir S. Romilly did not think the petitioners had any intention of insulting the house; but Mr Canning, though he by no means thought they ought to be nice as to the

language of petitions, could not concur in the reception of one which contained a direct incitement to resistance. Mr Wynn and Mr Bathurst also opposed it, and it was rejected by a majority of 135 to 48. Lord Cochrane then produced another, which, on being read, was found to be verbatim the same with the one just rejected. Upon the representation, therefore, of Mr Vansittart and Mr Canning, he agreed to with. draw it. Another was rejected on the ground that there was no signature upon the sheet of paper on which the petition was written. One was then exhibited from Delph, in Yorkshire, when Lord C. being asked if it was not the very same which had been twice rejected, replied he did not think it was exactly the same; but the Speaker stating that there was no difference whatever, Mr Canning endeavoured to impress upon the noble lord the impropriety of pushing this petition in so many shapes, contrary to the decided opinion of the house. Lord C. however, insisted on the question being put, when it was negatived without a division.

Two days after, (31st January,) Sir W. Lemon presented a petition from the freeholders and inhabitants of Cornwall, which he stated to be couched in such temperate language, that no objection could be made to it. It urged that there could be no hope of freedom or public economy, till the people were adequately represented in the House; that the want of this had produced the ruinous wars, enormous taxation, and overgrown military establishment, under which the nation suffered; that the people were excluded from any substantial influence in the election of the House, and that an oligarchical faction had actually usurped the sovereignty of the country, to the equal danger of King, Lords, and Commons. Mr Brande advised the reception of the petition, to which no opposition was made. Sir

F. Burdett then produced a petition from Halifax, premising that, though he knew its general tenor, he had not read it, so as to be able to say whether or not its expressions would be thought sufficiently respectful. Indeed he did not conceive that there was any occasion for this previous reading, or that he had any title to intercept petitions from his fellow subjects, whatever their tenor might be. It was for the House to determine whether they would receive it or not, and he thought the rejection of petitions, even by them, a very questionable privilege. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then called upon the Speaker to state, whether a member, before presenting a petition, was not bound to read it, and ascertain whether it contained any thing disrespectful to the House. The Speaker gave his opinion decidedly against Sir Francis, who declared that the petitions transmitted to him were so numerous, that he would not undertake to read them on any account; and that they would occupy the whole period of the session. A warm debate now ensued, the reception of the petition being sup. ported by Mr Brougham, Sir S. Romilly, and Lord Cochrane, while it was opposed by Mr Wynn, Mr Abercrombie, and Mr Canning. Sir Francis urged; Was it to be endured in such a moment, when the nation was complaining of its wrongs from one end to the other, that lawyers should get up and cross-examine any member who, in the exercise of his duty, laid before them the petitions of the people? Were they to be told one day that the names of petitioners must appear upon the parchment, and another day, that members must read every petition that they present, or it would be rejected? Were such formalities to stand between the people and their representatives; and if not complied with, were the former to be dismissed without a hearing? Was that a time to erect such a barrier?

At length, after a candid and conciliatory speech from Lord Lascelles, Sir Francis agreed to withhold this petition for the present, and presented several others which he had read, and which were received.

The next discussion on the subject was on the 4th February, when Mr W. Smith, the member for Norwich, stated that he had a petition from that city, most respectably signed, and which he did not know contained any thing improper or offensive. He declined, however, saying positively that he considered it unexceptionable, or even that he had read it, on the principle, that the House ought not, unless on very strong grounds indeed, to reject any petition, and ought not to require that a member, before presenting one, should read and be responsible for its containing nothing offensive. Mr Wynn and Lord Castlereagh insisted, that the House must maintain the prin ciple objected to by Mr Smith, otherwise they would be liable to be continually libelled and insulted. They regretted that Mr Smith had forced the question unnecessarily on the attention of the House, since if he had said nothing, no objection could have been made; but they must maintain the principle by rejecting the petition. Mr Brougham and Sir F. Burdett supported the reading of it, but Mr Smith adhering to the ground which he had taken up, the motion was negatived without a division.

On the 6th of February, Lord Cochrane presented a petition signed by 30,050 of the inhabitants of Manchester. He stated, however, that he could not be responsible for the language being such as the House was likely to think unobjectionable. It was allowed, however, to be read; when it soon proved, with a slight exception, to be the identical petition which the noble lord had presented on a former day from so many different

quarters. After a short discussion it was rejected, by a majority of 50 to 17. On the 9th of February, Lord Cochrane presented the petition signed at the Spa-fields meeting on the famous 2d of December, having 24,000 names affixed to it. He vindicated the loyalty of this meeting, stating it not to have been in the least accessory to the riots and disturbances which alarmed the metropolis on the day on which it was voted. It was drawn up, he said, in temperate, respectful language, more temperate indeed than he himself would have employed had it been his task to compose it. It prayed for annual parliaments and universal suffrage; it complained of the intolerable weight of taxation, of the distresses of the country, and of the squandering of the money extracted from the pockets of an oppressed and impoverished people, to support sinecure placemen and pensioners. No objection was made to its being laid on the table. On the 11th February, Lord Folkestone presented the petition which had been sign. ed by the meeting in the same place on the 10th. It was to the same tenor; and as there appeared nothing disrespectful in the language, it was also received.

A singular case from Warrington was brought before the house by Mr Brougham, in a petition which stated, that a petition for reform, signed by some hundreds of the inhabitants, had been seized by one Richard Burrowes, through whose hands it had come into those of Mr Thomas Lyon, nephew of the acting magistrate, and residing in his house, who had refused to return it. Mr B. moved, that it should be merely laid on the table, that the opposite party might have an opportunity of answering it. Mr Bootle Wilbraham approved of the course followed by Mr Brougham, but was convinced that this would turn out merely a coarse joke, such as he knew to be common among the lower classes in manufactu

ring districts. Mr Ponsonby, however, declared it appeared to him one of the most gross and flagrant violations of the privileges of the people, and of that house, that had ever occurred; and Mr Wynn regretted the subject had been treated with levity, and thought the House should trace the matter to its source. In a few days after, a peti. tion was received from Mr Lyon, who stated, that he was merely writing a letter in the parlour, when a hue and cry was raised in the street adjacent ; that he found it proceeded from the mob pursuing Richard Burrowes, a man of extremely good character, whom he had therefore placed in safe custody, and inquired into the cause. Burrowes acknowledged that he had, by way of joke, carried off the petition, which Mr Lyon took into his possession. An application was made to him for it, but he was advised that it did not come from the competent authority, and being also applied to by seve ral persons who wished to erase their names from it, he complied with neither request, but kept it, in expectation that the matter would undergo a proper examination before a magistrate, or other competent tribunal, to whom he had always been ready and desirous of delivering it up. This apology was not deemed sufficient, and it was allowed even by Mr Wilbraham, that Mr Lyon had not exercised a sound judgment on the occasion.

The present session was characterized by the novelty of numerous petitions for reform presented from Scotland. They were from Dundee, Perth, Montrose, Arbroath, Brechin, Kirkaldy, Kilwinning, Saltcoats, Queensferry, and some other places. Lord Cochrane and Lord Archibald Hamilton took occasion to state, that there were not in Scotland above 2700 individuals endowed with the right of election, and that a man there might have 10,000l. a-year of landed property

without having a vote. On the other hand, the Lord Advocate, Mr Boswell, and Lord Binning asserted, that these petitions did not at all express the general sense of the people of Scotland; in proof of which they remarked that no such petition had been sent by the landed interest, by the freeholders, or by any corporate body.

The petitions now enumerated form. ed only a very small proportion of the vast number presented to parliament; and as they appeared sufficient to fill a large waggon, and covered nearly the whole floor, Sir F. Burdett, on the 3d March, moved that they should be taken up en masse, and laid on the table. A member, however, having turned over several, and discovered flaws in them, it was suggested, that some examination should take place before conferring this honour indiscriminately on all. The discussion was therefore referred to a future day. About a week after, the Speaker stated that he had caused the petitions to be sorted; that they amounted to 527, of which several exhibited the defects which had caused the rejection of others; but the circumstanee which chiefly called for consideration was, that 468 of them were printed. Hereupon a warm debate arose, as to the propriety of receiving printed petitions. Mr W. W. Wynne stated, that the question had been agitated in 1665, in 1793, and in 1813; on the latter occasion it had been decided that printed petitions should not be received; and six days afterwards a petition from Major Cartwright, for leave to present a printed petition, was refused. He thought the rule a reasonable one, calculated to pre

vent the manufacturing of petitions in London for the purpose of being sent down to be signed, instead of offering a genuine expression of the sentiments of the people. We had lately seen the effect of this manufacture, of which whole reams had been sent down to be signed. Sir F. Burdett said the rule of 1665 could now be of no force whatever; the rule was framed by Cromwell's creatures, placed in that house by himself, and not one of them allowed to enter parliament till he was furnished with a ticket from the soldiers who surrounded the doors. Nothing was settled by the entry of1793; and the discussion itself stood only on the doubtful rule of Cromwell's parliament. In 1813, reference was made to this supposed rule of 1793, and a division certainly took place, which could be now of no force, as it went on the supposition of a rule that never existed. Printed petitions were read and comprehended with much greater facility than those which were written, and every man was able to see and understand what he was to sign. Lord Castlereagh knew that designing men went about the country, availing themselves of the rights of the people, for the purpose of calling meetings, in which they might exert every faculty, and rouse the passions of the people for putting them in movement towards a general rebellion. As it was clear that the rules and practice of the House were against the entertaining of printed petitions, he should vote against the motion. The house divided.-Ayes, 6-Noes, 58Majority against receiving printed pe titions, 52.

"His royal highness the Prince Regent, acting in the name and on the behalf of his majesty, has given orders that there be laid before the House of Lords, papers containing information respecting certain practices, meetings, and combinations in the metropolis, and in different parts of the kingdom, evidently calculated to endanger the public tranquillity, to alienate the affections of his majesty's subjects from his majesty's person and government, and to bring into hatred and contempt the whole system of our laws and constitution. His royal highness recommends to the House of Commons to take these papers into their immediate and serious consideration."

This message gave rise in the Lords to considerable warmth of debate.— Lord Sidmouth lamented the necessity under which ministers felt themselves placed of advising his royal highness to send this message. He stated, as the measure to be proposed by ministers, the appointment of a secret committee, to which the information in possession of ministers would be submitted, and begged that their lordships would suspend their judgment, till its report was on their table. In the meantime he merely moved an address to the Prince Regent, assuring him that the House would take his message into consideration.

Earl Grosvenor observed, the noble viscount had undoubtedly made a most tremendous charge against a large portion of the people of this country. "I trust that charge will not be sustained; but at all events, your lordships cannot but acquiesce in the proposition of the noble viscount, for going into this committee, after such a serious, such a momentous charge." He was convinced, however, that if there was any disaffection, it arose chiefly from the opposition of ministers to every species of reform and retrenchment.