The Sun.
London, England, 1839-02-08 00:00:00

of a general disease.

One of the evils of knowledge, on account of which,
no doubt, certain benevolent classes have endeavoured
to check its progress, was made evident last night by
the Debate in the House of Commons, on the presen-
t.tion of petitions. The people know too much of the
proceeding-5 of Parliament, tco much of the Acts of
Government, too much of the affairs of State, too much
about the mysteries of law-making, and they overwhelm
Legislators, Statesmen, and Ministers with their memo-
rials, petitions, a..d complaints. In mercy to those,
the progress of knowledge ought to be stopped. In
one Session, according to Sir ROBERT INGLIS, 10,394
petitions were presented to the House. To read
them all, the House must sit 800 da)s, six hours each
day, without allowlog a single minute for the garniture
of a speech. Time and human strength, as Sir ROBERT
PEEL explained, who seemed quite alive to the impor-
tance of the question, would not suffice to receive the
petitions of the knowing and discontented people ; and
Mr. WARD'S suggestion of speaking on each petition,
struck him and others with agony and horror, as tend-
!
' ing to extinguish all mere orators, to put an end at
once to the chief functions of the House, reducing it to
be the mere recipient of the people's prayers.
A keen perception of these consequences, we presume,
and the quasi threats of some of the Members to stand
upon their privilege, and speak in spite of the House, made
the debate, as Mr. VILLIERS remarked, somewhat acri-
monious. One admirable and impressive conclusion it
forced on the House, and will force on the country. Sir
It. PEEL said, " it was notorious that there was no
nation on the face of the globe of which the legislation
was conducted more slovenly than that of England.'
Measures are continually brought forward to amend
amendments, and the whole of our legislation is a dis-
graceful botching and tinkering w. ich in any workshop
or counting-house of the Empire would be discarded with
sovereign contempt. The most important of all human
works is carried on in the most negligent and un-
thrifty manner. Those who bully the people into
obedience really know not the rules they make, nor the
rules they declare they will compel others to follow by
force. For the Parliament to catch a glimpse of doubt
in its own wisdom, and to entertain, for a moment, the
supposition thdt it may by possibility be wrong, is one
of the most healthy symptoms which have for a long
time fallen under our notice. We echo, and the public
will echo Sir Robert Peel's recommendation for the
House " to make enactments effective," and when it
has made them just, wise, and effective, it may, pos-
sibly be restored to public respect.
The course of the debate was this. Mr. WARD MSC
to present a petition from Sheffield, fur the repeal of the
Corn-laws, and proceeded to speak on it, whereupon the
SPEAKER interrupted him, and explained, that the ma-

jority of the House had, with a view of saving the time
of the House, come to an understanding that Members
were not to speak on petitions. At a subsequent period
he explained the practice to be this : " that in the event
of any petition being offered to the House, com-
plaining of any grievance requiring redress, that pe-
tition was immediately entertained and discussed.
That in the event of any Member offering a pe-
tition to the House relating to any matter which
he wished to bring under the consideration of
the House, the course was for him to give im-
mediate notice of his intention to present that petition
on a future day, which day was named ; the petition
was then printed, put upon the votes, and placed imme-
diately in the hands of the Member. The great propor-
tion of petitions referring to subjects which wore before
the House in the shape of notices of motion, or other-
wise, were presented by Members, merely stating the
places from which they came, the number of signatures
attached to them, and also stating as fully as he pleased,
but without reading them (which would be contrary to
the rules of the House) the contents of such petitions.
Those petitions were then laid on the table, referred to
a Committee, either printed and classed with others of
a similar import, the number of signatures ingrafted into
the Report, and according to the progress of proceeding
(probably within three or four days) were placed in
the hands of every Member of the House." Mr.
oon, however, persisted in his right to speak
but made no motion, and did not present his peti-
tion, expecting that Lord JOHN RUSSELL would
make a motion, which in the first instance the Noble
Lord declined, and contended that the practice of the
House as laid down by the Speaker was binding on the
lion. Member. Sir FaaNcts Bottom, determined
to be a distinguished recreant in all things, said, to
speak on petitions was a novelty and making an ex
parte statement. Sir ROBERT INGLIS demonstrated the
utter impossibility of the House allowing all petitions to
be spoken to. Mr. HUME took the side of speaking,
end spoke against Sir FRANCIS BURDETT. Sir ROBERT
Plat. explained in a sensible speech that he was is
favour of the present practice. Mr. P. THOMSON
made it appear that this was the most
advantageous for petitioners, and insured speedy atten-
tion to their petitions, which under the old practice
might not be presented for weeks. Mr. VILLIERS
thought it was of more importance to attend to peti-
tions than to transact what is called public business. Mr.
BROTHERTON showed that the petitions of the people
were not treated with contempt, and that the prevalent
opinion in the country on the subject was an error. On
Mr. WARD taunting Lord J. RUSSELL, the Noble Lord
moved that the House adhere to the established practice,
as laid down by the SPEAKER ; but finally withdrew that
motion, and announced his intention of submitting it
to the House to-day. Mr. WARD Will not succeed ;
and the practice of stifling the petitions of the people,
as at present, if they be stifled, will be continued.
We should regret this less, were the bulk of the
people represented, for they could then influence their
representatives. But it so happens that those who have
most grievances to complain of, and whose lot in society,
whether caused by the laws, as they believe, or not, is
the most irksome, are unrepresented, and the only mode
by which they can reach the Legislature is by petitions.
When they perceive that their petitions are unnoticed,
and are thrust contemptuously aside into a bag, they see
no prospect of redress from the Legislature, except as
they can help themselves, and feel despair and indig-
nation. For the unrepresented, who may hope by po-
tions to have some weight with the Parliament and the
public, the probable decision of the House is to be de-
precated. It is adding to the injustice suffered by the
disfranchised. Bat circumstances have so altered, bu-
siness has become so oppressive, and the people justly
petition against so many things that the House of
Commons is quite inadequate to perform, unless in the
most slovenly and imperfect manner, the many duties
which have devolved on it. To put the petitions into a
bag is an easy method of getting rid of the most
troublesome, and the least satisfactory part of its labours.

An excellent Anti-Corn meeting was held yesterday
in the Tower Hamlets, and though some foolish
Chartists and half madmen essayed to prevent the