o the House of Commons in a cab, and had been
presented according to the usual form.--Lord Brougham, who made his
first appearance in the house since Christmas, remarked that however
high he held the right of petitioning, and of meeting for the purpose
of discussing public affairs, he was decidedly of opinion that such
a multitudinous meeting as that referred to, as well as the monster
meetings of Ireland, could be viewed in no other light but as
demonstrations intended to overawe the parliament and the crown by an
exhibition of physical force. Although he had condemned the manner in
which the Manchester meeting in 1819 was put down, it was his opinion,
as well as the opinion of Lord Plunkett and the late Lord Abinger, that
such a meeting could not be considered _bona fide_ meant for discussion,
and that it was illegal.--The Duke of Wellington quite concurred in the
law as declared by Lord Brougham, and considered that the metropolis
had deep reasons for complaint in having trade interrupted, commerce
suspended, the inhabitants kept in a state of alarm and terror for
several days, owing to the assemblage of large bodies of people, whose
only object could be, by meeting in such multitudes, to overawe the
legislature. He sincerely rejoiced that the peace had been preserved
without the appearance of a single soldier.--The Marquis of Northampton
heard the explanations given with pleasure. He thought the country was
greatly indebted to the noble duke, and also to all concerned, for their
exertions in maintaining the peace.--The Marquis of Lansdowne declared
that it was most gratifying to him and to the government to find
the enthusiasm displayed by all the respectable inhabitants of the
metropolis, who had come forward to enrol themselves as special
constables. The noble marquis said that the exemplary conduct of the
police was also deserving of the highest commendation.

Allegations having been made that the names attached to the petition
were not nearly so numerous as alleged, and that many of them were
forgeries, an inquiry was called for, and the committee on public
petitions had the task assigned to it of making the investigation. The
report made by the chairman to the house was most singular, showing that
in fact the privilege of petition had been abused, and the house trifled
with. On the 13th of April Mr. Thornley brought up the report of
the committee on public petitions, which stated that upon the 26th of
November