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 re jection 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

"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 opposi tion of ministers to every species of reform and retrenchment.

Lord Holland conceived, after such serious communications, there could be no objection made to the course proposed by the noble viscount. "But still, I should not leave this house at all satisfied with myself, if I did not express the deep regret I feel on this occasion, that such a communication should be made, whether it has proceeded from improper practices on the part of individuals, or from the intention of any one, in power or out of power, to create a false alarm, at this period, throughout the country. In a time of peace, when no apprehension can be entertained from a foreign enemy; in a time of dreadful distress amongst the people of this country, which naturally renders them anxious to see the legislature and the representatives of the nation conduct themselves in such a manner as to prove the substantial benefits of the constitution, by devising means for their relief; at such a period, measures of a harsh nature ought to be deeply considered before they are adopted." He would say nothing at present as to the measures to be proposed in consequence, but should deeply regret if they were such as had any tendency to abridge the liberties of the subject. This was always to be deprecated, but still more now when the people were groaning under unparalleled distress, which had generated discontent, and when the people were looking, reasonably or not, to parliament for a relief from their evils.

The Earl of Liverpool would not say much, since no difference of opinion appeared to exist as to the mode of procedure. He trusted that a more constitutional, or even a more liberal proposition, could not have been made than that of his noble friend. He hoped the noble lords would suspend their judgment till means were afforded to them of forming a decision. "That decision will be formed, with every regard to the liberties of the subject

with a strong disposition not to infringe on the established laws of the country-with every tenderness to the feelings of the people on the one hand; but on the other, with a firm determination to uphold the constitution and government of the country." He denied that any charge was advanced against the great body of the people, but merely that disaffected and seditious persons were attempting to withdraw them from their allegiance. He admitted the distresses of the times, but conceived that these were usually, as now, employed by the designing to excite mischief and create confusion.

Earl Grey concurred in the proprie ty of the course of proceeding propo sed, and agreed to suspend his judgment, as desired by the noble Lords on the other side. At the same time he could not help joining with his friends in lamenting deeply, that such a necessity should have been supposed to exist. He certainly concurred in their views of the general conduct of the people. "Perhaps there never was a time when, suffering under such an amount of distress, when, labouring under the pressure of such severe calamity-affecting the highest and the lowest-the lowest weighed down by privations, which human nature can hardly any longer support-the highest impoverished by the calls of benevolence and charity, so universally displayed in relieving their less fortunate fellow-creatures ;-perhaps, my lords, under so great an accumulation of misery, such exemplary patience, forbearance, resignation, and confidence in the existing constitution and government of the country, were never before exhibited. When we see this, when we see that these effects are produced by an unfeigned veneration for the consti. tution which we all love, but which I have rarely heard eulogized by the noble lords opposite, except as a preliminary to some invasion of it; when

we consider that this forbearance, this patience, this resignation, afford the best proof of the benefit of our constitution, which inspires such confidence, and produces such temperate conduct, ought we not to be most cautious in agreeing to any innovation? I think it is a most unfortunate circumstance, a most lamentable necessity, that at this period of distress and misery, when no measure of relief has been adopted, when no one efficient measure of reduction and retrenchment has been carried into effect; but when, on the contrary, as has been truly stated by my noble friend, (Earl Grosvenor) every effort to obtain a reduction of the public expenditure, for which the people of England have unanimously called, has been met with rejection or evasion by his majesty's government-it is most unfortunate, that at such a time, a measure should be proposed, which, there is too much reason to apprehend, may lead to some invasion or infringe ment of the people's rights. When year after year new powers are given to the Crown-when we are daily arming the executive government with novel and unheard of authority-when, on the other hand, we know not of any new powers being added to those sanctioned by our ancestors for the security of the people-I hope we shall cautiously abstain from following up this system, and that we shall not continue to give fresh strength to the executive government, while we impair and weaken the liberties of the subject." Nothing, he conceived, but the most imperious necessity could justify any interference with those constitutional barriers which had hitherto protected the people.

The Marquis of Buckingham agreed in lamenting the necessity of this measure, and in the heavy responsibility which lay upon ministers to prove their assertions. He was disposed,

however, to give them his confidence. He would enter on the question as in the functions of a juror in a case of life and death; but if the facts should be proved, it would be the worst tenderness to the people to allow them to become the dupes of a few desperate and designing individuals.

The address was then agreed to, as well as that the papers on the table should be referred to a committee of secrecy, consisting of eleven lords, to be chosen next day by ballot. Accordingly, on the 5th February, the following noblemen were appointed:-The Lord Chancellor, Earl Harrowby, Duke of Bedford, Duke of Montrose, Earl Fitzwilliam, Earl of Liverpool, Earl Powis, Earl of St Germains, Lords Sidmouth, Grenville, and Redesdale.

In the Commons, the message did not give rise to any debate, and on the motion of Lord Castlereagh, it was agreed, on the 3d February, that the precedent of 1794 should be strictly followed, and the papers referred to a committee of secrecy, consisting of twenty-one members. While these were ballotted for on the following day, Mr Brougham attempted to ridicule the process, by undertaking to predict the names that would actually be returned, without the trouble of any scrutiny. The honourable member then read from a list the following names which he anticipated would appear upon the list presented by the committee of scrutiny: Lord Castlereagh, Lord Middleton, Mr Ponsonby, Mr Canning, Mr B. Bathurst, Sir Wil. liam Curtis, the Hon. Mr Lambe, Mr E. B. Wilbraham, Mr W. Elliot, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, Mr Wilberforce, Sir Arthur Piggott, Sir Egerton Brydges, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Lascelles, Mr Rose, Mr F. Robinson, Mr W. Dundas, Sir J. Nicholls, and

Admiral Frank. When, shortly after, the names of those returned for the committee of secrecy were read, considerable laughter was produced by the two lists being the very same, with the exception of Mr Charles York, in place of Lord Middleton.

On the 18th and 19th of February, the reports of the Committees were presented at the bar of the two houses. They began by stating, that it appeared in evidence, that a traitorous conspiracy for the overthrow of the government had been formed in the metropolis, and that meetings with the same object were held in different parts of the country. It described the proceedings of the Spafields mob on the 24 December, as entirely the result of a preconcerted plan, the failure of which was ascribed to accidental circumstances, and the same designs were still entertained. Efforts were at the same time made to bring into contempt all law, religion, and morality. Societies were formed under the appellation of Hampden Clubs and others, which, under pretence of parliamentary reform, carried on plans for the entire overthrow of the constitution. Another society, called the Spencean, looked to a general division of landed property. The proceedings of these societies were carried on with the utmost secrecy, being seldom committed to writing, but almost every thing transacted verbally at the meetings. The committees could not but consider the late outrage on the Prince Regent as a proof of the wish which existed to destroy all reverence for government; and they were on the whole led to express a decided opinion, that farther measures were necessary for the preservation of the public peace. The report of the Lords, from which that of the other House does not materially differ, is given at large in the Appendix, (P. 226.)

The most important measure, founded upon these reports, being the bill for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, originated in the House of Lords. On the 20th of February, Lord Sidmouth moved the first reading of it. At the request, however, of a number of the members, he delayed the discussion till the second reading, which he fixed for Monday the 24th. Lord Holland consented to the delay, stipulating, however, that he should not thus be considered as in any degree committing himself in favour of the proposed measure. The bill was read a first time.

On Monday the 24th, the order of the day being read for the second reading, Lord Sidmouth rose and observed, what deep regret must be felt, and how much every feeling of loyalty must be shocked at the facts disclosed in the committee's report. The evidence and documents could not with propriety be produced there, or referred to now; but there were three prominent features in the report, which merited the particular attention of their lordships. These were, that a treasonable conspiracy had been formed in the metropolis; that similar designs were extensively diffused through the country, particularly in the manufacturing districts-and that farther previsions are necessary for the public peace. It had been asked, why government had not instituted prosecutions for punishing the infamous libels with which the press teemed ; but it was but justice to government to state, that they had not neglected their duty with regard to those publications. As soon as they reached the hands of ministers, they were transmitted to the law officers of the Crown, who felt that these publications were drawn up with so much dexterity, the authors had so profited by former lessons of experience, that greater difficulties to conviction pre