The Sun. — London, England, 1821-02-21 00:00:00

move an amendment, which it would be undesira ble to have carried. The Earl of LisicarcK agreed with the Noble - Lord,that the grant was too large, and with much of what had been said by the Noble Lord respect •ing the conduct of the Queen ; nor should he, perhaps, have risen, had it not been for an illu sion made by the Noble Lord very unnecessarily, as it seemed to him, to what took place some time since in the house of Commons with rela tion to a proposed allowance to a branch of the Royal Family.- He could not 'at'all agree with the Noble Lord in his opi4io6 upon that subject ; so far IPorn there having been any.evidence what ever, to justify the vote. alluded, to, there was nothing,alleged but Mere .ruMours, which were - wholly .Ainfounded-Land so far from that vote, which. was only carried- by a majority of one, meeting with the general approbation of the public, he did not believe that there was any opinion of that destcripticin. lie should feel himself guiltyof great baseness, if lie not stood up in defence of • the Illustrinus Individual, Who, at one- time talc . 7 ing an active part in' that llotise,. had, he firmly believed; acted to the best of his jodgment, and had used,all his exertions to bring in those in dividuals as Ministers whose measures he (Lord Litrierick) believed to be the best calculated to promote the interests of the country. The' Earl of BLESINTON begged leave to differ llith the Noble and Learned Lord on the Wool sack, and the Most Reverend Metropolitan, as to the legality of excluding her Majesty's name from the Liturgy ; and, though he only gave an illegal opinion—he meant an opinion not founded upon legal knhwledge—still he must give it as his decided opinion, that the Queen . was entitled' to have her name inserted in the Liturgy. As to what had been said by the Noble Earl (Limerick) on the Cross Bench, respecting a former case of an Illustrious Individual in the House of Com mons, he did not see that their Lordships had any thing to do with it, as it applied solely and en tirely to the House of Commons. With regard to the Queen, he must repeat his opinion, that her Majesty -was entitled to have her name re stored to the Liturgy ; and this he considered to be the best means of allaying all the irritation • that existed. amongst the people. Lord CALTHORPE was precluded from oppos ing the grant by the recollection that before quit • ting England, her Majesty had refused the sum now proposed. He thought that it would be un fair to take advantage of her liberality. The Marquess of LANSOOWN said he was one of those who thought that, under the present cif curnstances, it would not be advantageous either . to the cause Of her Majesty or to the country. ..to disetiss the general question on the second 'reading of this Bill. He could not, however, refrain from saying, that although he certainly did - not approve of every part of her Majesty's • conduct since her arrival in this country ; al though he did not approve of the Letter which . her Majesty. had been advised to write to the King, or of parts of 'several of , her Majesty's An-. swers to Addresses (although he had no means -of judging- of the - accuracy with which those Answers had been reported), he yet thought that, placed in the anomalous situation in which her Majesty had been placed—placed in a situation of utter abandonment, in which no Queen of England had ever before found herself, he should consider it the height of cruelty to render her Majesty strictly responsible for all the proceed ings which had taken place in her name.---(Hear, hear, hear!)—With respect to the allowance granted by- the present Bill to her Majesty, he had no hesitation f in saying, that he did not feel that any circumstances which arose out of the omission of her Majesty's name - in the Liturgy, should induce her Majesty to decline receiving the money voted to her by Parliament ; and he trusted that she would yet consent to accept it. The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow.—Adjourned HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEn. 20. AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS Sir W. LEMON presented a petition from Truro and other parts otCumberland, complaining of the great extent of • Agricultural DistreSs.—Sir W. a-uISE presented. a similar petition from Gloucestershire.—Mr. LAWLEY presented eight petitions of a similar nature from.the holders of Land in Warwickshire.—Lord E. SOM ERSET pre sented a similar petition from Agriculturists in the - neighbourhood of e helt.:nham, and a similar petition from North Leach, in Gloucestershire. Mr. S. WOIITLEY presented a .similar petition from Doncaster.—Mr. MUNDY-presented a simi ler petition from Occupiers,of Land in Derby shire. Sir Is t.tc COFFIN said that farmers were very loud in their cutnplaints, but one cause of dis tress was, that farmers turned Gentlemen, and indulged in expence ; the best thing to be done vias, for the country - to return to its original. ha bit 4, and for Gentlemen Farmers to resu:ne their frocks. Mr. C. SMITH assured the Honourable Men-i -tPr who had just sat down, that he need not be under any •a.pprehens!ons respecting the habits of brniers ; -their great and incteasing-distress had most of them to resume the frock, and to deny themselves comforts to which they had been accustomed. The several petitions were read, and ordered to be printed. IRISH COURTS OF LAW. Mr. C. GRANT brought in a Bill to regulate the Civil Proceedings in . Courts of Justice in L•e land.—Ordered to be read a second time the 2d of March. - TIMBER TAADE Mr. GLADSTONE presented a petition from cer tain Merchants of Liverpool, engaged in the Tim ber Trade with North America, praying that the protecting Duties might be continued.—Ordered to be printed. Sir.E. K NA TCIIBULL rose to put a question to Ministers. It was known that an affray of a se rious nature took 'place about ten days ago in the county of Kent with some smugglers ; two persons had been taken into custody on that oc , calion, and instead of having been examined be for the local . Aragistratesof the county, those persons liad boop . ient off to Bow-street by the Officers of the Preventive Service. if e 'cirished.to know whether these officers, in doing so, acted under the authority of Ministers, and what in. structions were issued to them ? Sir G. CLERK said, that no instructions were issued to the Officers of the—Preventive Service, with respect to the two individnals who had been taken into custody. But in justice it was but fair to say, that those individuals were sent up to London because it was considered a course best calculated to answer the ends of justice, and riot for the purpose of throwing any disrespect upon the local Magistrates of Kent. The affray was a most serious one, in which several lives had been lost, and the prisoners had been transmitted to London in order" that the best legal advice might be at hand. HUM, POOR RATE'S BII.L. Mr. „S. WORTLEY presented a petition against this Bill from the Inhabitants of Thorn.—Or dered to lie on the Table. FORC;ERY ON THE BANK. Mr. C URWEN said, that he had understood from authority that the plan of Mr. Applegarth, the person employed to engrave the new Bank-notes in order to prevent future forgeries on the Bank, had entirely failed. In policy, as well as in hu manity, so desirable an object as that of prevent ing forgeries ought not to be suspended. There were other artists of great talents who could produce a note, which, if not absolutely inimi table, would at least render forgery very diffi cult. It was for the ends of justice, and for the cause of humanity, that that nefarious practice should be put an end to. He was therefore anxious to hear from an Honourable Member (Mr. Davies Gilbert) whether the Commission ers had any plan before them which was likely 'to be approved of. If nothing satisfactory was likely to be accomplished, he would feel it his duty to submit a motion to the House on the subject on an early day. Mr. D. G ILBERT said, that every possible ex ertion had been made in order to promote the de sirable object to which the Honourable Member alluded. The plan of Mr. Applegarth was sub mitted to the Commissioners ; they inspected it carefully. It was imposSible to praise too highly the ingenuity and talents of that Gentleman.— Mr. Applegarth, by means of a chemicil pro cess, which had the effect of hardening the steel, could multiply the impressions to an almost hide, finite extent, and so far prove the identity of the notes. But it mast occur to every Gentleman, that there was a great deal more than identity necessary. Mr. A pplegarth's plan extended only so far as he (Mr. Gilbert) stated ; it was there fore rejected. The difficulty of the case was ap parent. The object was, if possible, to construct a note of that peculiar fabric, which could not be successfully imitated by other human means.— The Commissioners had made inquiries in every quarter. They received information, as well from English artists as from persons in the United States of America, and from time to time they saw good reasons for changing previous opinions, and rejecting plans which they were before dis posed to have approved of. Notes which they had at one time considered as inimitable, they had afterwards found to be very easily imitated. He had no public information to give on this sub ject to the Honourable Member. He was not really aware whether any plan had been sub mitted, or whether any thing had been done for the last three weeks. Mr. CURWEN expressed his regret at the failure of those endeavours which the Commissioners had made. The clumsy attempts to imitate the notes in circulation, were very perceptible. If some thing was not speedily done, he certainly would feel it his duty to bring the matter under the consideration of the House. Sir ISAAC COFFIN said, that he had recom mended Mr. Parkins, an American Artist, and felt a natural interest for the success of that Gentleman's plan. Mr. GILBERT said, that the plan of Mr. Ap plegarth only differed from common engraving- in the instance he had already stated. That indeed was a transcendent improvement, but in other respects his plan presented nothing very superior to common engravings. (Here the conversation dropped.) CHURCH BRIEFS. Mr. LYTTLETON rose pursuant to notice, to bring forward a motion respecting .Church Briefs and the monies collected therefrom. The Hon. Member observed that if there was any defect in the present system, he was sure the House would agree that it ought to he reformed ; so that it might be restored to the pious and benevolent object for which it was originally formed. Before bringing forward his intended motion, he. would very shortly state a few preliminary circuni stances, in order to illustrate it. According to the present system, when a church in a populous district had fallen into decay ; or when a heavy calamity, as fire, for instance, had fallen upon an individual, it was the practice to apply to eie Magistrates at the Quarter Sessions. They gave a certificate, which was laid before the Lord Chancellor, wh3 thereupon issued letters patent, which were called a brief. The brief passed irn mediately through an officer, called an under taker, and the person usually employed on this Occasion was a highly respectable Gentleman, Mr. Salt, a banker residing in Lombard-street; and he should observe that, on all hands, it was admitted that no man' could discharge his duty more conscientiously or honourably than this Gentleman. On the receipt of the brief, a given number of copies (about 10,000) was printed and distributed among the several parishes in the kingdom ; the Churchwardens of each parish were required to collect subscriptions from pew to pew, and from house to house; and the money thus collected was remitted to Mr. Salt. The rue. lion. Member then enu:nerated the charges at tendant upon .obtaining a brief, the whole ex penses of which amounted to about 841., of which but an inconsiderable portion went to the Lord Chancelhr. The lion, Member stated, that in no instance did the present undertaker take the whnle of the perquisite to which he was entitled; and, indeed, the opinion g,enerally received that the undertaker received considerable emoluments from his office was most erroneous. A report had prevailed too, that the briefs were farmed : and the consequence of such a report neces sarily was that - the spirit •of liberality b.:ca-rie chilled, as few persons would bestow their bounty upon the mere: purchaser of such a privilege. The fact, not Znily that there vas no instance on record of the farming of, a brief, but that a statute which was passed in the reign . of Queen Anne, against such farming,,was for the purpose of contradicting the idea that the farming of briefs was allowed by law. The Act was not introductory. of a new law ; it was only declaratory of an. old one. With these prefa tory observations the lion. Member said, he would shortly inform the House the remedy he proposed for the present defects of the system. First, he suggested that most of the fees attend ing the obtaining of .a brief should be abolished. At present there was a surplus-fund available, -which might be laid out in the purchase of an annuity for the undertaker, in,the shape, of com pensation, should his feeS be abolished ; for as he . held his office for life, and no blame was attributed to him, it could not be contemplated to deprive him of his office without making him a compen sation. The next improvement was with respect- , to the Stamp Duty at present chargeable upon briefs ; and this duty he had no doubt the Chan cellor of the Exchequer would willingly give up. lie proposed, also, a more regular distribution of the copies, and a more general reading of them in churches. These improvements, with the disse mination from authority of an assurance that the . farming of briefs did not exist, would, he trusted, restore these documents to their original efficacy ; and stimulate the liberality of the public to wards suffering individuals. _ The Honourable Member conclud e d--by mov i ng for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the distribution of Briefs, and the application of the money . collected there • from. Leave• was accordingly given: - ADMIRALTY FEES. Sir M. W. Ittor,Ey moved for an Account of Admiralty Fees for the last ten years, with the appropriation thereof.—Ordered. CONVICTIONS FOR FORGERIES IN IRELAND. Mr. G. BENNET moved for an Account of the Number- of Persons convicted for forging Bank of Ireland Notes 'for the last three years, speci fying the number of each year; and also for an Account of the Number of Persons who were ex ecuted in that country for the same offence, dur ing the same period.—Granted. "FLAX AND COTTON ACTS. Mr. BROGDEN brought up the Report of the Committee upon the Flax and Cotton Acts,which was read and agreed to. No r I'INGLIANI PETITION. _ Mr. DENmAN said, he held a Petition from the People of Nottingham, praying for an Inquiry into the State of the Country—praying specifi cally fur an Inquiry into the Transactions which took place at Manchester—(Hear, hear !)—and also that Articles of Impeachment might be ex hibited against Ministers. • In the absence, of Ministers he would not stop to say how much he agreed in most of the sentiments expressed by the Petitioners—he would not say how far• their conduct appeared to him to deserve the severe imputations which the Petitioners cast upon them. - It was necessary for him to say that some Mem bers thought that the language of the Petition was rather too strong ; for his own part, .he saw no objection to the Petition ; but if the language of the Petition was strong, the state of distress to which the Petitioners were reduced should plead for the warmth of their feelings. It would be re collected that Nottingham was mentioned as one of those places in which trade had lately revived, but in one parish in Nottingham. the arrears of the Poor Rates amounted to six. thousand pounds —a sum which, if attempted to be levied, would bring the greater part of the working , people to absolute ruin-4W warrants should be issued daily to enforce the payment of that arrear. He stated' the fact to slew that such men must have felt the deep distress of their country, and that from them it was but natural to expect, as it was only fair to excuse, the warm expression of their senti ments. The Hon. Gnitleman concluded by• mov ing thilt• the Petition be received. [The Petition was then brought up, and read by the Cleric, It commenced by observing, that the present wet e not times for the Petitioners to use the latign ige of adulation, but to. speak as Englishmen upon the distresses and wrongs of their country. They implored the if - louse, as they valued their own comfort and security, to attend to the security and com 7 lot ts of their fellow-countrymen. They stated that the greatest evils had been In ought upon the country I.y the acts of a cor rupt and unfeeling Administration, under whase policy the ,real glory of Englasid was tarnished, and her people bent down under acts of cruelty and oppression, The mott o "t i f rbose Ministers was .‘ Divide and conquer." They implored the House to institute an impeachment aozainst therit for va• rions injuries they had inflicted On the people, and for their base and traiterous conduct. against their innocent, high minded and persecuted Queen. They wisitd.to O'fify the peo• pie by acts of tyranny—men were led to captivity, and brought to the scalrold without cause. The people, stare, ing wider distress and misfortune, cried nut for foul=: heir com plaints were answered the Corn Law—by swords and bayonets—And disgraceful Acts of Parliament. Thu carnage of the memorable 16111 ~f AllgliSi, a day of blond, Which was not accounted for, deina tided retributive jostice. They , irrayed that the traitors and murderers of that day might be brought to condign punishment. The people On that day had done no wrong—( Hear, hear :)—wliy then should they have been butchered by armed yeomanry, who received public thanks for their deeds of rinirder and of blood, from the ;Mi nisters of the Prince Regent ?—The petition was ordered ru lie on the Table.] On the question being put, that the Petitior be printed, Mr. C. NVYNN said, he did not object to the motion that-the- Petitiau should lie on the table, notwithstanding the offensiveness of its language, but he could not allow an allegation to go forth to the world, that men were brought unjustly to the scaffold. Such a charge was a gtos insult to the public justice of the country, and should not receive circulation from that House. Mr. G. BENNET said that he did not agree in ull the statements of the Petitioners, but he had no doubt that a great portion of them was strictly But he could not but strongly object to e attempt of getting rid, by way of a side ,vied, of the old right of printing Petitions. The [l6ll. Gentleman (Mr. Wynn) could not produce 4 single instance in which 'Petitions were not printed as a matter of course for the last two years•. A late lamented:friend of his (Mr. Whit bread) had said, on the occasion where an alter ation► had been made with respect to the print ing of Petitions, that the language of seve ral Petitions might not often suit the delicate ears of persons in that House, Whose conduct those very Petitions might happen to impugn. f t was quite anew attempt to prevent the print ing.of Petitions. It was done with a view which was disclaimed in that House several years ago. If it should prove successful, the thing would come to this—that every Petition which express ed in terms - of honest indignation the feelings of the people might be stifled ; Gentlemen would refuse to allow such Petitiomte to be printed.— The next step would be, to prevent the Peti tions from being reall-(Hear, hear o—They might then decide not to' receive them at He could not but se4 his face,against an attempt to prevent ithe print ig Of TMistiAs under the new-fangled laws and regulations of the Honour able Gentleman. One great object acknow ledged on all hands was, that the country should be informed of the proceedings of that House, but the present was an attempt to prevent the country from being informed. The Honourable Gentleman concluded by saying, that the right of having. the Petitions of the people printed and circulated, was one. which he would not consent to surrender : he would take the sense of the House- upon the subject. Lord BINNING said, he was surprised at the ex aggerated view which the Hon. Mernber had taken with respect to the printing of this single petition. Was it to be supposed, that because the House might refuse to print one Petition, that therefore, they would refuse to print the Petitions of the People ? The present was the first instance ever since an arrangement vas made with respect to the printing of Petitions, that any objection had been made with respect to the printing of Petitions. The old practice was, that the votes should be laid before the Speaker. and if any thing in the Petition appeared ummparlia mentary.or improper, time Speaker, using his dis cretion, war at liberty to .erase it. In his opi nion, the House should not be deprived- of the right to keep back from the People matter which was insulting to the character of England. Sir ROBERT WILSON said he did not rise to justify all the allegations in the Petition. But could. it be denied teat men were put to death in open violation of the law—could it be, . denied also, that Ministers refused to bring the parties accused of the murder to justice ? But Ministers did more than that, they rewarded those persons with a vote of thanks ; and the Magistrate who was accused of having given the order for attack, received- a lucrative place from the . hands of Ministers.--The Petitioners gave Ministers an opportunity, if they, dared, to enter into a justification of their conduct. ,It also gave I an opportunity to that House to redeem their I character. It was a melancholy and disgraceful fact, that six hundred and twenty persons were either killed or maimed on the 16th of August, and that no inquiry whatever followed. lie (Sir Robert) was in a Court of Law a few days since, when a Member of that House (Sir Francis Bur dett) had been brought up to, receive the judg ment of the. Court, because he addressed a Letter to his Constituents, under feelings of indignation which did honour to his heart. For that the Hon. Baronet was consigned to a prison; but persons whom he (Sir Robert) was prepared to prove guilty of murder—yes, if an opportunity were allowed him, he was prepared to prove the fact at the bar of that House ; those persons Were not only at full liberty, but were absolutely rewarded, and encouraged, as far as impunity could encou rage them, to repeat the offence. 'ln the Court to which he had alluded, he recollected the Judge to have declared that no wrong.could be committed in England without redress. Tie would ask the 'House whether any redress had been ever yet afforded to the sufferers of Man chester? He had been for 18 months attempting to bring forward some inquiry on this metalcholy subject, but he . found himself checked in every point ; he found it impossible to bring the_subjec before a regular tribunal. The Gallant Genera concluded by saying, that since the date of the Letter, approving of the conduct of tl►e Man chester Yeomanry. every act of the Government required a Bill of Indemnity. Lord CASTLER EAGH said, .that it was an ex traordinary assertion that the Government was bound to bring persons to justice - accused of crime. He thanked God that. they lived under a Constitution different from what the Gallant Officer supposed. It depended not on Minister; to do so—every subject charged with a crime was liable to be brought to trial for it. It could only answer the purpose of those who wished to inflame the public mind to prefer charges ofinur der against individuals. If such charges could be legally sustained, why were not steps taken to bring them forward ? Why did not the Gallant General prefer those charges ? li e t rave ll e d ou of his military duty to serve his country in a civil capacity; and, if those charges could be sustained, the Gallant General, instead of going down to that House with false insinuations, was bound to bring them forward in a regular shape. For his own part, he gloried in the part which he had taken with - respect to - that transaction, in procuring the sanction of Government to those whose bona fide efforts on that occa- sion were dictated by what they considered, . - and what he believed to be,ia -sense of duty.-- The honourable General should not say th a t hi s MajeStY's Ministers were withholding justice ; though without the assistance of the Honour- able General's advice, they had the fortune to meet the approbation of the House, and, he be lieved, of the country ; but if it were otherwise, it was not with them that the adrninistnztion of justice resided. As to the words of the Petition, there were scarcely any expressions respecting the Ministers of the Crown which. should make him hesitate to receive Petitions of the people-L.— (1 - lear!)----hut when the Petition spoke of acts of the Legislature, and of the administration of justice, in the terms v hich had been read, be thought that to receive it would be' to encourage the predominant spirit out of doors. It might benaturally said, that if there was any objection to the Petition, it should have been taken on the question that it be allowed to lie.on the Table.— (Hear!)--This was true; -hut 5,7.11 en, from ivad, vertence or otherwis, an objectionable Petition was laid upon the Table, were they to be de prived of all discretion, and obliged to print and send forth a libel ? Sir R. WILSON said, he had not asserted any thing that he was not prepared to prove. lii charged_ ale parties to the transaction of the 16th of August with murder, and he was prepared to take the responsibility of that charge.—(Hear!) Lord CASTLEREAGH said, the Hon. General had better bring that charge before a competent tribunal.—(Bear!) Sir M. RIDLEY said, that when the new mode of printing the votes Was first pro osed in the Committe i ! he ha4' bjected to,the 'Toposition, • oNtie nd t laC, t e printi o ions nigh lore entel thought that if a Peti tion was fit to 'be -laid on tie Table, it was fit to be printed, and therefore he should vote that it be printed ; though he was -ready to admit thit he should have voted against the reception:.of if a qaestion had been taken on it. Mr. Wv.ast could not accede to the proposition that every Petiticn that was received was fit to Le printed, as there might be Petitions presented containing reflections on individuals which it would be highly improper to send forth. • Mr. DICKINSON concurred with the lion. Bart. • (Sir M. Ridley) that in the Committee it had • been deemed an objection to the new mode or printing the votes, th a t it m igh t prevent t h e Pe titions from being printed, but it had been un derstood that the power should never be so ex erted. Mr. B.tTHURST observed, tl:at whatever the private opinions of the Mt mbers of the Com mittee were at the time, it could not take away the power which the House possessed,• which was proved by the very circumstance .that the ques tion was taken first on the reception, and then oat the printing of the Petition. Mr. BOOTLE WI LBRAHA 31, a I Odillsr, to that part of the Petition which complained of the transac tions at Manchester, stated that the Magistrates and Yeomanry had always been desirous foe an intpiry into their conduct. Upan these trans actions an HonouFable Baronet (Sir Francis Bur dett) had last Session given notice of a motion ; but had from time to time postponed it, until it eventually fell t) the ground on the close of the Session. It had, however, bee n renewed, and the Magistrates and Yeomanry still invited an in qu'ry. It was known that the Bills, against the Yeomanry (for none had been preferred against the Magistrates) had been thrown out at two Assizes, although the Grand: Jury at the last Assizes was composed of different persons from the former Jury. The Hon. Member sat down, repeating the desire of the Magistrates and 'Yeo manry to meet inquiry. Mr. Pm LLIPs said, that he had carefully and anxiously examined all the facts relating to the transactions at Manchester, and he had foundno- • thing to justify the acts complained of. It had been said in that House, that these acts had beeit grossly exaggerated ; but nothing he had found.. upon his inquiry justified that assertion.—(Hear, hear !)-:—Much stress had been laid on the re jection by the Grand Jury of Lancaster of the Bills against the Yeomanry ; but if what he had heard was true, and he believed it to be true, he could only say, that he thought no other Grand Jury would have rejected the Bills. If they could have .been presented in the county of York, he thought the result would have been different. Mr. STEWART WORTLEY !a.'d that a Court of Law 1‘ Rs t' e proper place for discussing the question . As the Grand Jury had rejected the . Bills of I ndictnh-tnt under the Cutting ft4 - -Mairti. i„ g - A r t, w hy lnld not a charge of Murder bee preferred ? Nay, why had not an Indictinent%✓ ; or an Action of Assault been instituted ; for either of these proceedings would have raised the ques tion as to the conduct of the Magistrates and leo martry ? • Sir Roase e rer WILSON explained.—The reasoa.'" • an Indictment for Murder had riot been pre ferred, was on account of the result of the Old 'ham Inquest. The Coroner had taken the inquest in an informal manner, and whether he had done so designedly or not, it was not necessary to in quire; but the consequence of that informality was, that the Jury could record no verdict. A majority of them declared that they would hav 4 ' brought in a verdict of Wilful Murder. As to the Hon. Member's question, respecting an in dictment on an Action of assault, he begged in return to ask a question of the lion. Member, if on that occasion he bad lost a brother, a wife, or a child, would he be satisfied w'em preferring ai indictment, or bringing an action of assirmlt Mr. S. WoaTeEr explained. He rnemely stated that sue: a proceedinc , would 'raise the legal question. • Mr. BitouGnam said he thought it must be the desire of the'llouse to put the Petition in print, if possible, although he did not think it necessary to defend the language. of it. The lion. ald Learned Member .proceeded to examine the e7c.- ceptipnable passages. -He o')jected, he said, to no language of violence reyp-cting his Majesty's Ministers—(llear, hear, hear! fam the 0 oposi tie). The phrase " disgraceful Acts of Parli t ment," must he understood from the subsequent words as applicable to the conduct of Ministers; and he (Mr. B.) contended (hut the people 11714 a right to stigmatise Acts of Parliament earrietll.l---) the influence of Ministers ; and Wiel.re:peet the other parts of the language, he crnr,iderel that the people had a constitutional right to co great lengths in the language of Petition. With respect to the transa.c,tions 'at Manchester, he declared that nothing on that subject which had occurred since those transactions,- had altered his original opinion. Indeed he thought what had happened since, had time more to abate the respect of the people for 6e administration of the public justice thanany thing he had ever known before. Nothing had '5 O tended to shake the confidence of the people in • that - best and surest support of a Government. In particular lie regretted that the Grand Jury of Lancaster had not found the bills of indict ment ; because had they found these bills, the subsequent proceedings upon them, the convice Pion or acquittal of the accused, would have re stored tho public;contidence in time laws. Mr. LUSHINOTON begged to recall the attcn ticn of the House to the question immediately mid 'r discussion. After some observations upon the- Parliamentary law, to show that printing a p 'tition was not a necessary consequence to red - ceii•irg it, the lion. Member remarked, even the Hon. Gentleman who presented the