264 Parliamentary Proceedings. Od. 26, 



Mr JdJiyU X.\:o\izh.t the petition was highly injurious to ti; 

 Houfc, Hi laid it was a lean laloiis and libellous coiiipofition. 



liich def^ rvtd to be feverely cenfured. He v. as therefore ct 

 opinioi!, that the petition ought to be difmifTed with every 

 mark of contemot, and moved, " that it be rejcdcd accordir.ij- 

 iy." 



This motion v/as feconded. 



The Majler of the Rolls laid, as the petition certainly com- 

 plained of lit undue return, it was from that circumflance en- 

 titled to a hearing, ho\7evcr improp;;r it might be in other re- 

 I'peds. : 



The Speaker faid, the petition was a mod impudent and inde- 

 cent attack on the chara(?ter and dign'ty of the Houfc. It 

 was uapreceiUnted, ■• hich might induce hefitatio" about t\\t 

 proper mode of proceei'in,':; ; he thought it ought to be repro- 

 bated as an outrageous violation of the refpcdt due to the lloufe. 



The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was juft coire in, dcfir- 

 ed that the petition might be read a third time, which being 

 done, he faid, that though it was j'ifbly entitled tocenfure, yet, 

 on this occafion, he conceived the Houfc had no choice ; they 

 were bound to adhere to the letter of the ad, and were not at 

 liberty to ufe their difcrction. 



Mr Bearcrofti though he admitted that the Iloufe were not 

 at liberty to ufe th.eir difcretion, when a proper petition was 

 prcfcnted, yet he confidered the piefent as not coming under 

 that denomination, and was for njeding it in the firft inflance. 



The Mafler of the Rolls began now, he faid, to think with 

 Mr PiJtney, that the petition did not contain any complaint 

 that tended to bring the qutftion to an ilFue, and thought it 

 might be difmifTed. 



Colonel Hartley agreed with the two former fpeakers. 



Sir IVilliam Tou/ig concurred in opinion with them. 



Mr Fox faid, it might perhaps appear improper in him to rife 

 on this fubje»5t,but he was convinced he Ihould fpeak without 

 bias. He faid it was ntceflary in this cafe to proceed with 

 caution. The people were jealous of their privileges ; and juftly. 

 The intention of the law authonfing the Houfe to appoint a 

 committee for trying eledtions, was evidently to take the power 

 oi deciiiing from the Houlc at large ; but if they were to exer- 

 cife their difcretion in admitting or rejefting petitions in the 

 firft inftance, they would alTume a pov^er that the adl evident- 

 ly intended they iliould not exercife. From this confideration, 

 whatever might be the libellous nature of the petition, he thought 

 they could not legally prevent it from going to a committee. 



The Chancellor of the Exchequer concurred entirely with him 

 in this point, and after a le\/ more obfervations, it was ordered- 

 to be taken into coniideration on the 4tii of February. 

 fThe proceedings in this cafe til be concluded in our next. J 



