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

COMMON PLEAS. FRE. 7.

petition had been presented do
.any subject; and Other
Gentlemen ittie* they had petitions of the same na-
ture, they had brought them up without even asking
for discussion, which had been the means of saving a
great deal of time. But he heard with the utmost surprise,
if anything could surprise him in that House now-a-days,
the Hon. Bart, the late Member foi Westminster stand up
and state it Wati a hovel question whether the House should
hear the petitions of the people —(Cries of " No, r,0,"
and Yes, yes.") What was it the Honourable Mem-
ber had asked for but that petitions should be
discussed ; and the Honourable Baronet the Member
for Wiltshire said that that was a novelty, because forsooth
the mere presenting the petition would make an ex
parte statement. What petition could be presented with-
out an cx parts statement ? If the objection were
good for any thing, it would hold good in reference
to every petition that cern° before the House.
It was, in truth, an objection to speaking in that House,
because every M3ll who presented a petition said
something or other. He would say that this
question was not worthy the consideration of the
House at present. With regard to the practice
it was now a good many years since he had
had the pleasure of sitting in that House with Mr. Speaker,
and he would put it to Mr. Speaker whether it was not the
ancient and ordinary practice to discuss petitions on presen-
tation ? He would refer to the Orders of the Day, who
ther petitions were not discussed night after night, even to
eight and nine o'clock. It was not very long since that
the Speaker was in the habit of pointing to the clock,
calling the attention of the House to the fact of its being
eight o'clock, and therefore time to enter upon the ordi-
nary business. He denied, therefore, that it was a
modern practice. No doubt it was attended with
its inconvenience. Ile had with others offsred his ad-
vice, probably as erroneous as the advice of others, as
to how the inconvenience might be best aooided with-
out limiting by rule, or order of the House, any obser-
vations to be made on the petitions of the people. Ile
had been willing to try every thing be could with a
view to give satisfaction to the people, and at the same
time not to interfere with the business of the
House. What state were we in now ? He certainly
was much surprised at the statement of the Noble Lord.
The Noble Lord, who had stated that it was the old practice
not to speak upon petitions, must have forgotten that he
himself had taken part in the discussion of petitions.
Yet now the Noble Lord would limit or put down that,
which it was to be presumed was the proper practice. He
( Mr. Hume) differed from the Speaker, and from the Noble
Lord, who urged that no petitions were to be heard but
those in which the majority of the House concurred.-_( Cries
of " No, no.") If he understood—( Laughter)—he took
that to be the effect of what they had said. He thought no re.
solution ought to be passed, limiting the right of petitioning.
Did the House concede the right of petitioning ? Ile
presumed they did. Was it meant that petitions should be
heard and understood ? If so, no rule ought to be adopted
restricting the right of stating their contents.
He knew that great dissatisfaction prevailed in the
country vie to the way in which petitions were re-
ceived by that House. He admitted the inconvenience
which had occurred, and that he had concurred in an en-
deavour to obviate it—but now that the trial had been
made, he was bound to state that it had failed,
and that the people of this country were greatly dissatisfied
with it; it was frequently said at public meetings that
it was no use to petition the House of Commons, for that
petitions were only thrown into a bag under the table, and
the Member presenting them was not allowed scarcely to
mention the names of the places from which they came.—
( Hear, hear.) If the House were anxious to satisfy the
country, would they allow such a state of things to continue ?
'Last Session he (Mr. Flume) had repeatedly incurred the
displeasure of the Speaker fur endeavouring to speak upon
petitions, which he contended lie had a right to do, arid
which he did do, as long as he pleased. Ile contended that
every Member had a right to do so; there was no limit to
speaking in that llouae.—( Laughter. ) No limit fie meant
but the discretion of Members, and those just restric-
tions which ill every public assembly must be adopted,
that speakers should keep to the subject under debate.
Every Member ought to be allowed to use his own discre-
tion, in presenting a petition, to advocate the interests
committed to his charge ; and he believed that in no case
would petitions be unneceseal ily dwelt upon.--( Hear,
hear.) He hoped, therefore, the House would place no
restriction upon the right of pctitioning.—( Hear, hear. )
Sir ROBERT PE EL believed the universal feeling to
be, that any restrictions which had been imposed on the
discussion of petitions had been for the convenience of the
House ; and also that the regulations which had been en-
forced were calculated to promote the convenience and
dispatch of business. —( hver, hear.) They had various
important duties to perform—the duty of hearing peti-
tions—the duty of legislation—the duty of examining the
expenditure of the year—the duty of discussing great con-
stitutional questions. Human strength was limited. There
were limits to the time which could be devoted to the perfor-
mance of those duties; and it had become necessary to attempt
to make a compromise of them, and he believed the rule had
been to give no advantage to any particular duty, but to
make that arrangement which was most likely to
give the greatest satisfaction to the people. Now,
it was discovered that there was one particular duty
which it was of the utmost urgency they should perform,
and he did not deny it.—( Hear, hear.) It was their duty
to receive the petitions of the people, but it seas their duty
also not to permit any lengthened debate on such pe-
titions. They were to be bound by strict constitu-
tional rights. The public had a right to present
petitions, and it was the duty of the House to hear
them ; but he apprehended they had a right to
determine the b..st mode of discussing any great public
questions. Let them adhere to the strict constitutional
right. The petition was to be received, but the pe-
tition, according to strict constitutional right, ought to
be read at the table, whatever its length, in an audible
voice, and every Member ought to be silent, and
listen, not to the speech of the Hon. Member who
presented it--(Tory cheers)—not to the acrimonious de-
bate of opponents on either side, but they ought delibe-
rately to listen to the statement made in each petition.__
The Hon. Member opposite had said that his Hon. Friend
was wrong in his Rule of Three, and that he might
put down three hundred petitions at once. The Hon.
Gentleman might bring forward any sophisms in whatever
way he pleased, namely, that whore 300 ought to be put
down, one should be inserted; but it was a different ques-
tion whether he presented one petition, and slid there were
300 corresponding ones. It was very well for the Hon. Gen-
tlemen sitting in Committee, with all the petitions which had
beenpresonted on the table, to examine each and fled they all
• ;le esponded ; but he (Sir R. Peel) should like to ask
whether his powers of intuition were equal to his
powers of calculation—(Laughter)—and whether, when
he (Sir R. Peel)—appeared with his petition, the
Honourable Gentleman would undertake to say, " I
strongly suspect either by sight or smell that your petition
corresponds with the other petition which was presented
before, and therefore your petition shall not be read."
They could not prove that his petition exactly corres-
ponded wish the petition that had gone before, and suppos-
ing that he took care that there should be some verbal
alterations in that petition, in what manner could they dis-
charge their constitutional rights of listening to all they
had no right to say? The object of that petition was of
particular importance ; it was equally their duty to receive
from the remotest parish of England or Ireland any pe-
tition, and to pay attention to it ; and he would tell them
that, supposing after establishing their rule, any party
chose to embody an article, or to issue pamphlets, to say,
" We will not use simple prayers; we will suppott our
prayer by lengthened argument upon it ;" he would say
it was equally his (the Speaker's) duty to read in a more
audible voice than he had of late done. They cannot deny
tictn. Gent.lat whatever
madetli time
a p
excitementse
speech on
might s
petition, u,
toebe been while an
the moment
they came to read that petition there was a general inat-
tention. They told us they wanted other opportunities
f r discussion, but did not say that their object was to en-
able all to listen attentively to every petition they might
choose to present. What right had a Member to give his
paraphrase of a petition ? Had not the petitioners a right to
say, " hear our simple prayer ?" This was their strict duty.
How were they to discharge otherwise their duty in the
strict letter of the law, " that this 13i11 be read a second
time ?" He supposed that the Clerk of the House had seen
the Bill read before he said " that this Bill be read a second
time." He apprehended that every Member had a righ
to ask that a Bill should be read a second time, and tha

four Sessions of Parliament, and arose out of .these cir-
cumstances s it had been very seriously felt to be a great
inconvenience that so much time had been lose in the prb
sentation of petitions, and that the title had been adopted
for the purpose of removing the interruption of the
public business by lengthened debates on petitions.
First morning sittings were established, and it was found
that they did not at all facilitate the presentation. of peti-
tions; they were established in February, and in the folk
lowing May the accumulation of unpresented petitions
became so great that it became necessary to refer the
question to a Special Committee then sitting to recom-
mend some means by which the presentation of petitions
might be facilitated. During the whole of his expe-
rience in that chair he had not heard any applica-
tion from any side for morning sittings to be re-
stornd. If debates were to be continued upon the pre-
sentation of petitions, as in former times, it was for the
House to consider how public business could be forwarded—
it was for the House to decide and dispose of the question.
All that be had to say, and he thought that it was
necessary for him to say, both for himself awl his suc-
cessor was,—that whatever rule might he established,
the rights of all Members might be taken care of
convenience of the House consulted, and that every
care should be taken to facilitate the access to that House
of all classes of her Majesty's subjects. Ile trusted that
care would be taken that the resolution should be one that
should afford a distinct rule for the guidance of the
Speaker in all times coming, for lie was free to
confess, that leaving their own discretion trenched upon
and adding to the discretion of the Speaker, was one which
no wise Speaker would ever wish for—(Cheers)—as it
would involve him in constant conflicts with individual
Members, a state of things to be very much deprecated. Ile
would say no more, but leave the House to decide, and he
trusted that any rule that might be adopted would be one
conducive to the public good.
Mr. WARD need not say with what feelings of respect
and attention ho heard what had fallen from the Speaker,
or how much the remarks he had made had with him due
weight, and how much he approved of tho sage observations
he had uttered. But it was not, nevertheless, to be for-
gotten that those observations and this dictum was not
guaranteed by any vote of the House ; those who
agreed with him on this important subject would re-
ceive that dictum with as much satisfaction as himself,
hut, like himself, they would also receive it
only as it deserved. This rule of the House was of
recent occurence, and he begged the House to re-
collect that it was not based upon that foundation
would entitle it to attention. Where was its origin? Nut,
surely, in any record on the journals, to claim sufficient
authority. This regulation, which affected is the deepest
manlier the principle of the right of petition, could not be
allowed to interfere with that right, yet this rule on
which it is said the discussion on petitions must be set
aside, and whi.sh makes us depatt from settled maxims,
is only of three years' standing. This want of discussion
on petitions, presented to this House, has engendered
through the country a feeling that the people are treated
with no consideration, and that their petitions arc
not heard with that attention which they ought,
and that they arc read over in a cold flippant manner by
the Clerk of the House—(he mentioned this without dis-
respect to that gentleman)—and then thrown under the
table. Some of them are printed, and we just hear
of what they purport, and how many signatures
are attached to them. There is, he denied, any record
of that House to make him silent on the presentation of a
petition—nay, so far was this novel and unjust practice
carried, that petitions under which the porters of the House
groaned, were only just mentioned, and suffered to pass
away unnoticed. He could not at all understand why
it was so. He would prefer his duty before anything. The
question was of the most serious and important deset lo-
tion, in connection with our influence throughout the
country, and might be attended with the disruption of all
tics with those who were represented here, and who had a
right to bring their sentiments before the country, and with
those who had no direct representation here. Ile should make
no motion upon the subject, but leave it in the bands
of the house. He would, however, claim the right to ac-
company any petition with remarks, and to open a discussion
whether any other Member presented such petition, or if it
were presented by himself. He thought the point was of
importance, but it must be from those who thought
differently from himself that a motion must come. Ile
would leave it in the hands of the House, with a sincere
wish that the point might be settled. He claimed and
asserted the privilege, and would exercise it whenever the
case seemed to him to require it.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in the present stage of the
subject, would only say it was the province of this
House to regulate its own practices, and as long as any prac-
tice was confirmed by the House, and seemed to meet the
general sense of the House, his impression was that such
practice should be continued. That being the case he
could not see how the [lon. Member could wish to over-
turn any practice without bringing forward a distinct motion
to that effect. The Honourable Gentleman wanted to
restore what he calls the ancient privileges of the
House. His belief was that the ancient practice of the
House was, that Members presenting petitions stated
the substance of the petitions, the numbers of the
petitioners, and the calling of the persons petitioning;
but he was not aware that the petitions were to
afford opportunities for those presenting. them to de-
liver their sentiments upon them.--( Hear, hear.) He
did not deny that :there were extraordinary occasions
when Members presenting petitions travelled out of the
ordinary route, but the occasions were so rare that they
could not be considered to afford precedents for a depar-
ture from the practice of the House. He would mention,
among others the petitions of the Friends of the
People presented in 1793. He thought the Honourable
Gentleman, without making a distinct motion, could not
depart from the ordinary practice of the House.
Mr. HAWES did remember one very remark-
able instance when a petition was presented by a
distinguished Member of that House. He was
present upon that occasion, and he well recollected
the spot from whence the speaker addressed the House ;
and if his memory did not fail him greatly, he deliberately
argued the question. Upon that occasion there was one
word which dropped from the chair, front which
alone he ventured to dissent, which was the statement
that if the House laid down any rule it would be expe-
dient that it should be a rule that would govern the
House throughout the session upon thepresentation of all pe
titions. Now he could not but think that that was unneces-
sary. He had no objection that the House should decide that
petitions on the Corn-laws should be presented without
comment. He was free to admit that great inconvenience
arose in consequence of having discussions upon all peti-
tions ; but upon great questions, where there was
a manifestation of public opinion, he thought they
should be made an exception to the general rule.—
( Hear, hear.) He believed that there was no ques-
tion now before the House, but if it was necessary lie would
move that Mr. Ward should be heard.—( Cries of " No,
no.") He hoped that his Hon. Friend would persevere,
and take the sense of the House in order that Members might
reserve to themselves the right of making observations upon
petitions when they thought it necessary.
Sir F. BURDE TT doubted very much whether this
proposition could be acceded to,:considering the greatly aug-
mented numbers et' petitions, and how many Gentlemen pre-
sented petitions Who never intended to move upon them,being
anxious :merely to speak upon them. After the very clear
and distinct statement of the Noble Lord, it was evidently
(-elite impolitic to adopt such a proposition. At the same
time Honourable Members would recollect that there
were particular exceptions, and that it was always in the
power of the House to afford opportunities to Hon-
ourable Members on peculiar occasions. He did
not see how it was possible to carry on the busi-
ness of the House if the now system were adopted.
He could not help adding that he was an old enough
Member of that House to recollect the time when no man
ventured to do more than open the petition, state its object,
and perhaps refer to the respectability of the signatures ;
but he was not permitted to enter into what would really be
a very unfair mode of statement—an exparte statement
which might lead to continual long discussions, or
produce impressions every way contrary to justice and
common sense, and greatly to the detriment of the
public service.—(Hear.) He hoped that that novelty
would not be introduced, which had grown up within his
own recollection, but that the good old mode—( Great
laughter)—of merely presenting a petition be adhered to.
Nothing could be more unfair than that kind of statement,
and he had seen it raise the greatest possible obstacle to
the business of the House. He begged, therefore, that the
House would not depart from the old rule, which had been
found so convenient.
Sir R. INGLIS—The question was not one so much of
convenience as of policy and justice. The Hon. Member
for Sheffield stated that petitions were read so formally, or
inaudibly, that no knowledge could be conveyed to the
House on the subject. He would ask whether it had been
taken into consideration the time that would be occupied in
reading these petitions. The year 1833 had been referred to
as that in which the experiment had been made on the
subject of petitions. In that year 10.394 petitions
had been presented to the House, and he called upon the
House to recollect, if the Hon. Member for Sheffield was
right, and that Members might not only read but provoke
discussion, how much time would be occupied—the same
right being conceded to every other gentleman. He
pledged himself that not one of these petitions could
be read in less than a minute and a half, and some
of them would take three or four minutes ; arid he
would ask the Hon. Member for Kilkenny to calculate
what time it would take—( Great laughter)—to read
10,394 petitions at that rate ? If the House sat 100 days,
at six hours a day, morning and night, they could
not dispose of all these petitions. In fact the
whole twenty-four hours would not be sufficient to
dispose of the whole. The Hon. Member for Lambeth
talked of the extreme importance of the petition from
Shefkeld. He (Sir Robert Inglis) was not one
to undervalue the importance of the petitions, whether for
or against the Corn-laws, or of the subject itself.—( Hear.)
If this proposed rule were adopted (every Hon. Member
claiming the same right), how was it possible for the
House to discharge any other duty then that of hearing
petitions. He did not mean to undervalue the petitions
of the people, but the practice now proposed was a modern
one. The greatest difficulty had taken place twelve years
ago, when the Roman Catholic Relief 13 It was under dis-
cussion, and whenever a question of Parliamentary Reform
or Municipal Reform was mooted, or any other question in
which the public mind was much interested, the same in-

Mr. Justice COLTSIAN sat at Nisi Prius at Westminster,
with a Common Jury.

LOCKE V. GREGORY

This was an action (,f libel against the proprietor of the
Satirist newspaper. The record was, however, with the
consent of both parties, withdrawn.

The Court was then occupied with a case which pre.
sented nothing of public interest.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, FRB. 7.
CROWDER V. SELF AND ANOTHER.

Mr. MILLER stated that this case was brought before
the jury to recover compensation for an illegal distress.
The plaintiff was a cab proprietor, renting a stable and
rooms over, at 241. a year, in hill-street, Finsbury, the
property of the defendant. At Michaelmas, 1837, he
owed a balance of 41. for the previous quarter's rent ; on
being applied to he craved for time—for only a few days,
as his cab was then under repair. lie went out, and on
his return found a man in possession of all his goods for a
full quarter's rent of 6/. He told the man that it was all
wrong, aTid offered to pay the 41., which alone was due.
The man refused to leave or take the money. Plaintiff
then saw his master, the broker, and offered him the 4/.,
but lie also refused to take less than the 61. The man was
continued in possession for six days to the great inconve-
nience and loss of the plaintiff, as the man in possession
refused to allow more than one horse and cab to leave the
premises at a time. On the sixth day the broker found
that he had made a mistake, said the landlord
had deceived him, and withdrew the man. The defendant
had no right to do so ; be had exceeded his authority ; he
had put the plaintiff to great inconvenience and annoyance,
and for that he now sought compensation from the hands
of a Jury.

The Learned Gentleman proved his casa by severa'
witnesses.

Mr. Ilvt,Es submitted that the plaintiff had no case.
Upon the authority of two eases in the books no case
would lie unless the landlord had seized more goods than
the amount of his debt authorized, as the eebtor received no
injury. It had not been shown that more goods had been
taken than were worth 41.

Mr. MILLER recalled a witness, and proved the goods in
the plaintiff's house and fixtures to be worth 301.
Mr. 13vLEs then addressed the Jury, and characterised
the action as not that of the plaintiff, but what was go-
nr,rally called an Attorney's action. It vas a trumpery
one, and if they were told by his Lordship that they were
obliged to give damages, the smallest coin in the realm
would be suaicient.

His LORDSHIP summed up, and the Jury having given a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, Is.,
His LOkDSIIIP certified.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HO USE OF COMM ON S--,FEB. 7.
The House resumed at Four o'clock.
HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER.
The SPE AKER said the House had been to present
the Address to the Queen, to which her Majesty had re-
turned the following most gracious answer :
" I thank you for your loyal and dutiful Address.
I receive with satisfaction your assurances of support
in maintaining the authority of my Crown in my
Canadian provinces, I rely with confidence upon your
zealous assistance in upholding the observance of the law,
and upon your careful consideration of the weighty matters
in which you are to be engaged."
Several private petitions having been presented for leave
to bring in private Bills for establishing Small Debt Courts,
Mr. H A WF_',S said he would take that opportunity of
saving that it was necessary that the Government should
take this matter into consideration. Every Session many
of these Biils were passed, and all of them contained
almost incongruous enactments. There was no regularity
—no uniformity. He was sorry that none of the Minis-
ters were in their places, for he really thought it was a
question deserving their serious attention.
CORN-LAWS.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER, seeing the Noble Lord, the
Secretary for the Home Department, in his place,
would venture to put a question to him with respect to a
motion of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton, of which
he had given notice for the 19th of February. The Noble
Lord having stated that he was in favour of a fixed duty,
and against the present graduated scale, he wished
to ask whether, in the event of the Honourable
Member for Wolverhampton bringing forward his me-
lion on the 19 h of the present month, it was the inten-
tion of the Noble to meet that motion by an amendment,
recommending a moderate fixed duty, or whether he in-
tended to meet it by a direct negative?
Mr. VILLIERS said if the Hon. Member would allow
him to explain in the first instance, he wou?d state that it
was not his intention to raise the general question on the
19th instant. His object was to move that evidence be
heard at the bar of the House in support of the prayer of
particular petitions, and that it was his intention, on a sub-
sequent day, to move the House on the general question.
Lord JOIIN RUSSELL—With respect to the ques-
tion which the Hon. Gentleman has asked me, and the
explanation which the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton
has given, I beg to say that it certainly is not my
intention to move any amendment proposing a fixed
duty to the Hon. Gentleman's motion. So far as the
matter has yet gone, I certainly should not like to commit
myself absolutely to the motion, not having heard
any reason stated in support of it, but the present impres-
sion on my mind is that I shall oppose the motion to hear
evidence at the bar, not having yet heard sufficient reasons
or precedents to induce me to assent to such a course. At
the same time I must say that as there is a good deal of
discussion relative to the facts, if I find that it is cop-
formable to precedent, and not inconvenient, I think these
facts ought to be ascertained, and I shall be willing to
support any motion to that effect.—(Cheers.) The
Honourable Gentleman having askel me this question,
may I be permitted to add that since the formation of the
Grey Adtninistrai ion—some time during the government of
Earl Grey, this question was always considered an open
question with Government; Lord Althorp stated that in
1834 the members of the Cabinet agreed in opinion
that no alteration should take place. Ile stated his opi-
nion to be in favour of an alteration, but against the alte-
ration in point of time. Now my opinion was with Lord
Althorp in favour of an alteration, but I agreed with him
that 1834 was unfavourable in point of time, and I think
that 1839 is favourable in point of time for entertaining the
question.
Sir R. PEEL would not follow the example of the
Noble Lard. It would lead to great inconvenience if Mi-
nisters, professing to answer a question undertook to give
a history of the proceedings of the Government and of their
opinions. He wished to ask whether it might be taken for
granted that the motion would be brought forward--
whether it was the intention of the Honourable Mover to
persevere?
Mr. VILLIERS—It is my intention to persevere.
Sir R. PEED—On that day?
Mr. VILLIERS—Most certainly.
THE SOAP TRADE.

Mr. G ILL 0 N gave notice of his intention to-morrow
to move for certain return:connected with the Soap trade.
The Honourable Member also gave notice of his intention
to bring in a Bill for regulating the sale of Exciseable Li-
quors in Scotland ; and another for the reduction of the
taxes on internal cemmunication.
Lord J. ST UA RT gave notice of his intention to
bring in a Bill for regulating the law of copyright.
Mr. G. W. WOOD gave notice that on Monday next he
should move for a return of the prices of wheat inserted in
the Gazette for the year 1838 and the four preceding
years.

General JOHNSON gave notice of his intention to
move for some retu-ns respecting the Poor-law Amendment
Act.

Mr. HULL gave notice of his intention to move, on
the 21st instant, for certain returns relative to the damage
sustained by British commerce, in consequence of the
blockade of some of the ports in South America.

COUN-LAWS,
Mr. WARD rose to present A petition which had been
agreed to at a public rneeti7.g of the inhabitants of Shef-
field, to which the seal of the Master Cutler and the town
trustees was affixed, a:,d which had received the signatures of
13,000 of the inhabitants, including all the most influen-
tial merchants and manufacturers of the North, during the
three da3 F! which it was allowed to remain for signature at
the I'o,4'n-hall. The petition was for the entire and total
abQ,',ition of the existing laws regulating the importation of
foreign corn; and he felt bound to state, particularly after
be bad given notice of his intention, that upon a subject of
such transcendent importance—a subject so vitally inter-
esting to his constituents, he should claim and assert the
ancient right of being heard in support of the petition
which he had the honour to present--that it was his inten-
tion to travel out of the routine of presenting petitions—
that it was his intention to make a statement to the House,
and to deny the existence of any order or regulation of the
House by which he could be arrested in discharging his
duty to those who sent him here.

the SIEAKR considered that would be the proper
time for him to interpose and inform the House of his
impression upon the subject. It would be in the re-
collection of the House that he had always been anxious
that there should be some authoritative opinion given by
the House upon this subject. It was important that such
eimild be the case, not only to the rights of the people,
but also to the rights and convenience of the House.
It had been most truly said that there was no order
upon the subject—there was no such rule recorded on
the Journals of the House ; but it was unneces-
sary for him to state to any one who had the
slightest knowledge of the rule, forms, and re-
gulations of the House, that the same might
be said of a great number of what were now the practices
of the (louse. Ail the rules of the House arose from a
long course of practice, and the duty of the Speaker was
to enforce them, so far as he understood them. If there
were no inclination on the part of the ticiase to alter tr
amend those rules, he knew of no way in which the busi-
ness could be better done than by following the understood
sentiments of the majority of the House. When the majority
of that House bad been shown it was the duty of the Speaker
to give effi ct to those opinions, so far as in him lay, on most
occasions the minority of the House had given way to the
understood opinion of the majority, and necessarily so; be-
cause if it were nit so, any Member might, if lie pleased,
occupy the greater part of the time of the House, and it
would be most obnoxious to the feelings of the Speaker—
his duties would become even more onerous than they were
now, and every one who knew any thing of them were
quite aware they were onerous enough already.._( Hear,
hear, and cheers.) The rule of the House which
v.-J.5 COY under their coniiciera! ion, if he under-
steed it .iroperly, gee w up with the concurrence and
sanction tithe House, and had been acted upon during

convenience would arise.
Mr. HUME would take the Hon. Gentleman upon
his own showing, and demonstrate by the rule of three
that he was wrong.—(Great laughter and cheering.)
He would put this case, and he would remind the
Hon. Baronet that h.: had had the pleasure of sit-
ting with him for a number of years on the
Committee of Petitions, whether they had not found
on several occasions 200 or 300 petitions iden-
tically the same except the signatures; that he fancied
broke down the whole of the lion. Baronet's objections,
because by the rule of three he would rut down these
three hundred petitions as one.--( Roars of laughter.)
The Hon. Gentleman referred to numb;rs. He would

every Membr had farther the right, if he chose, to insist
that the one hundred and thirty-nine cluses of the Stamp
Consolidation Act should be read at length. But what
he would ask, would be the effect of the adoption of such
a course? Why the whole time of the House would be
occupied, and little or no business would be done.—( Hear,
hear.) What would be thought, he would ask, of an
Hon. Member getting up and stating that he had 500 pe-
titions to present—that he was desirous that the whole of
them should be read, and that he insisted upon his right
to make a speech upon each of them ? Why if such a
circumstance was allowed to take place, it would be im-
possible to go on with the public business. Ile regretted
that the question had come on in its present shape, be-
cause the inconvenience of adopting the proposition would
be that it would establish a rule without consideration for
the future proceedings of the H mse. If the llonourable
Gentleman's proposition were acceded to, every Hon.
Member would have a right at five o'clock to insist on pre-
senting
meanspetitions,
the
t„i moltingouse woau
would
speech •
involvedeponeach n of them,
ca
on
nd
fbuy
that .
sion, and probably be prevented from leg isla'ing alto-
gether. He thought that the House would satisfy the
people far more if they would devote more time to making
their logislativo enactments effective.—( Hear.) It was
notorious that there was no nation upon the face of the
globe in which the Legislation was conducted more slo-
venly than in England, for there was hardly a single mea-
psuurrepobsreouogfhatmfoerowdaiorgd,abruotooindothweontes.xt Session another mea-
sure was introduced fa the purpose of amending it. In-
deed, there were often measures brou,rht forward fer the
_(ettgliter. ) If the
Hon. Member said he insisted on his right to make obser.
Each
ssue wasclfh
asubjected
rci
gol:
Member must act for himself. It would be better
pveattii,
bheefomreust tell him lie had no right to bind us.
titaot he for themselves and the public that the business of the House
of Commons should proceed without such interruptions,
and their attention net be diverted from whatever discussions
might arise.
Honourable Nutseeamtisvb:ceereheand till,
asl
If the wishes of the Honourable Member
prevailed, every IlJn. Member would wish to present a
ldthbee
Speaker.
0 p
Theand
making a low.
Speaker...--( the authority of the
a •
would matter
conosftinteucteesfsoi necessity,
of•
r R. Peel) however,
would remember what he stated on this occasion, and
ehh Cu
w'
acinterruption
hear.)
o.
would
lo'clock,
' disregard
would tell him that he would not allow him to persist in
( Hear, hear.) Petitions were all upon
an equality, Petitioners were all upon an equality, and the
Hoo-ourable Member ought to know that all subjects were
ulna an equality ; and he was not to be allowed to select
any peculiar subject of his own, and claim an exemption
from those rules which had been laid down.--( Hear.)
Mr. WA RD must say the Right Honourable Baronet
had met him in a most unfair and uncourteous manne•.
He did not say uncourteous to the House, but to himself,
man who seldom intruded his observations on the House.
—(A laugh.) lie was discharging a great public duty,
and 1149 i'otti4.l tell the Honourable Baronet that be would I

--- ---
find that thay had agreed to print one only out of a series,
uhatever that series might IK-., and of counting that one
only worthy of notice. If it had been tie practice up
stairs it had been so down, in that House. When' one

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY.-EVENING IMITION,-FEBRUmIy 8., 1839

discharge diet dUtY. tte vosottldll fel- the ride, and
would say, that such a rule as that referred to, ought to be
distinctly laid down. He would tell them who said
there was any such rule to show it to him, and
would persist in saying it was a rule which pre-
/Tented him froth dist:hating his duty in a proper man-
ner. The Hon. Baronet had addressed him personally. He
would say it was for them who did not wish the rule to be
broken through, to lay down some intelligible rule. Let
those who object to some moderate and discretionary
power to those presenting the petitions, lay down the ride
they arc to abide by.—( Hear.)
Mr. P. THOMSON addressed the House, but we were
unable to catch the first words of his Address. We un-
derstood him to say, that his Hon. Friend who spoke last
seemed to have a great dissatisfaction to the practice pur-
sued in that House. He must say, that, by the remarks
his Hon. Friend had made, he had shown himself unac-
quainted in h the present practice of the House with re-
gard to the effect it had on the petitions themselves. He
said they are not read, and that they ought to be read,
but his desire seemed to be, not that-the petition should
be read, but he seemed to be anxious to have an oppor-
tunity of making a speech, and other Members should also
make speeches. The Hon. Member complained also that
the petitions of the people were brought up, put in a
bag, and treated without any ceremony. Ile would say
that he had neglected his duty, if he thought such to be
the course adopted with respect to the petitions—the
petitions were presented, read, and afterwards published_
and having been classified, any Member had the power to
give notice to call the attention of the House to that
petition. His Honoureble Friend might' have dote
so, and then this discussion might have taken place.
But he was prepared to rest this case upon the merits of
the petitioners themselves. Ile was prepared to contend
from the best attention he had been able to give to the
subject, and the observations he had been able to make—and
he had, perhaps, been mere constantly in the House for the
last three years during the presentation of petitions than
any other Member—he was prepared to say that the present
course would be more satisfactory to the petitioners them-
selves than the old practice. He was prepared to t( st that by
reference to what was introduced by his Hon. Friend the
Member for Lambeth. He had proposed that which could
neither be admitted nor adopted, the departing from the
rule with respect to one particular subject, and the ad-
hering to it with respect to another. But when he was
prepared to test it by his Hon. Friend's proposition, no
doubt could remain of his desire to give the matter
the fullest consideration, and to allow it to have all the
advantages possible. What was the former practice ? Had
Members not to come down day after day in the hope of
being able to get his name put down that he might be ena-
abled to present his petitions. One gentleman gave evi-
dence before the Committee in 1832, before the Honour.
able Baronet, that he had come down 24 mornings in the
hope of being able to succeed in getting his name upon
the list, and that during that time two or three speeches
a night had prevented him from getting his petitions heft,' e
the House ; and in that way petitions had been delayed
for three weeks or a month before their information could
be communicated to the House. What was it the peti.
tioners wished? Their wishes were that their prayers and the
circumstances of their cases should be made known to the
House as early as possible. Well, then, if thc House was to go
back to that practice which prevailed before the same re-
sults would take place, the hopes and expectations of the
petitioners would be disappointed, and the House would be
deprived of the information contained in their petitions.
His Hen. Friend, the Member for Wolverhampton, had a
motion on the subject of the Corn-laws, is hich stood for
next week ; and it was to be proposed on that occasion
that witnesses should be examined at the bar, reference
to the Corn-laws. Ile had heard there were hundreds of
petitions coming up, praying that that course might be
.
adopted. If those petitions were presented accoruing to
the present practice, they would be all classified op stairs,
the House would be made aware of the number orsigna,
titres to them, and the places from whence they came ; and
when it came to a discussion upon the point they would be
able to know the number of petitions both for and against
the course proposed, and come to the discussion of the ques-
tion with all the additional information which those petiti-
oners could communicate. Adopt the other course, and whet
would be the consequence ? Two or three petitions would
be presented, accompanied by eloquent speeches no doubt,
and the House would come to a discussion upon the subject
utterly uninformed of the number of petitions either for or
against the course proposed. He would put the case to his
Hon. Ft iced the Member for Wolverhampton, which would
be the most convenient course, and the best to his advan-
tage? Under what system it would come with the greatest
advantage before the House. He contended that tie prac-
tice of the last three years had given satisfaction to the
House itself, and he had heard some of those who were
now anxious to alter the system, express themselves satis-
fied with the system of the last three years. A dep eoure
front that system would create a much greater inconveni-
ence. Once go hack to the old system, and they must
consent to put aside the public business of the country
altogether, and attend not to the petitions but to the
speeches made on their presentation. Adeclaration of the con-
tents of the petition might be made—the number of signatures
ought to be stated—the facts of the petition ought to be
laid before the House, but the eiscuss;on of the merits of
the question ought to be reserved for a future occasion.
Mr. VILLIERS was very sorry to hear the ecrimonious
manner in which that question had been discussed It wes
a question of mere dry dkail, and more stormy declamation
he had scarcely ever heard imparted to a question of the
kind, which ought to be discussed with the utmost calm-
ness. He confessed the present arrangement, was very con-
venient for the • Members themselves, but was also very un-
satisfactory to the:public at large. It was no doubt very
ha-d and very unfortunate that a Member should come
down night after night and yet have no opportunity
of presenting his petition. The system of
his Honourable Friend (the Member for Sheffield) would
add greatly to the labours of individual Members, but the
present system very much dissatisfied the country.—
( Cheers.) The public said, "We leave our businesses—
we deeply consider these petitions—we write to our repre-
sentatives. No doubt, the petitions arc presented, but we
hear nothing of them ; we see nothing of them in the
Papers. Then what is the use of our so losing our time ?"
Now, it was impossible to deny that last year the subject
was one of general complaint. He had felt the incon-
venience himself, and he had been answered that the public
business had been advanced by it. But he never had heard
any answer made to what bad been replied to that—. What
is public business ? What do you do when you get to the
public business? We have been sitting here night after
eight, watching the proceedings, and we find that the two
hours following are occupied by not very pertinent questions
or by personal discussions, which were Ly no means of
national importance." That was confirmed by the state-
ment of the Right Hon. Gentleman. It was clear that
the greater portion of one Session was occupied in rectifying
the errors of the previous one. One point deserved notice,
and that was that the proposed plan would afford an op-
portunity of discussing questions which could not o:her wise
meet due consideration when all discussion was reserve d for
one night's debate. The people of England had not time
to devote themselves to political matters.—(" Hear," and a
laugh.) It was necessary that their attention should be
directed to these matters by repeated discussion, in order
that they might come at a due understanding of there.
Many of these errors had arisen from their over-hasty le-
gislation, and he hoped an opportunity would be afforded
of discussion these questions more fully, before pro-
ceeding to legislate on them. It was merely a ques-
tion between the convenience of Members and the
wants and exigencies of the country.—( Hear, hear. )
If the House made up their minds to attend to the public
business he did not believe that these complaints would
have been made, aod if that was done now he thought this
claim would be withdrawn.—(llear.) But with the tes-
timony of the Hon. Baronet ( Sir R. Peel), to the un-
satisfactory way which the public business was conducted,
it could not be expected that the people would be con-
tented.—( Hear, hear.)

Sir DE LACY E VANS said, having a petition of the
same nature as the lion. Member for Sheffield, he must
support the motion.—( Cries of " No, Oleic is no motion.")
Ho certainly must admit dint inconvenience had occurred
in former years from the public business being delayed,
but, on the other hand, he must say the inconvenience had
since been carried to a greater extent the other way.—
( Hear, hear.) With regard to his own constituents, he
must state there was a feeling of great dissatisfaction on
the subject, and they had entrusted him with several peti-
tions, which they had instructed him to withdraw if he
was not allowed to state their representations.—( Hear.)
It had been said it was important to economise the time of
the House, and so it was ; but then upon party discussions
the people saw there was an extreme and lavish loss of
time.—( Hear, hear.)

Mr. BROTHERTON rose amidst loud cries of

•` Question," and " Divide." He said there was no man
more anxious to save the time of the Howe, but he could
not concur in what had been urged by his Hon. Friends
around him, for though he believed that there was some
dissatisfaction on the subject, he was persuaded that arose
from the
_public mind having been misinformed as to the
facts.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) It had been
represented that petitions were merely thrown into a bag
—such was not the truth.—(Hear, hear, from the same
quarter, and from the Treasury Bench.) Every Hon.
Member had a right to state where the petition came from,
who were the petitioners, and what was the allegation.—
( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Greenock had last
night, in presenting a petion, occupied a considerable
time in stating its allegations—( Hear, hear. )—besides
which, any Member might name a subsequent day for
the discussion of the subject of a petition, which be
was anxious t) have more fully considered, with-
out infringing the rule of the House.—(Hear, hear.)
It had been stated, he knew, in many parts of the country,
no matter bow contrary to truth, that the petitions of the
people have been treated with contempt. This statement
he never allowed to be made, without contradicting it in a
manner that his knowledge of the proceedings of this
House enabled him to do; and from that knowledge he
knew that the petitions of the people fared much better
than when the former practice was followed. He must say
that some ten or a dozen of Members monopolised to them-
selves the right of taking up the time of the House with
petitions.—( Hear, hear, from the Opposition benches.)
Indeed, said the Hon. Member, such Memlm.s as himself
never get time to speak on the presentation of petitions.
Under all the circumstances of the case, he thought it
much better that the present system should be kept up ;
he therefore would give his vote to keep the rule as it at
present stood.

Mr. JOHN PARKER, who spoke so very low as to be
scarcely audible, said he must allow that the view of the
question which his Hon. Friend had taken was that in
which he coincided on this subject. Ho did not at all
doubt of the inconvenience of the practice, but notwith-
standing all those arguments the system ought to be met
with due attention. He could not consent to depart from
the rule adopted by the House.
Mr. WARD believed that he might now rise to present
his petition, because he stood precisely where he had done
before. He had made no compromise, he had made no
motion, and the same course adopted by him to-night
would be adopted by others- to-morrow, and throughout
the Session. He certainly thought that some proposition
would have come from the Noble Lord.—(Calls for Lord
John Rus.ell.)
Lord J. RUSSELL thought it was the duty of the

Hon. Member either to submit to the rule laid down by
the Chair, et to introduce some motion of his own.—
(Cheers from the epposition Benches.) It was per-
eetly competent for the lion: Member to say, and
• he (Lord J. Russell) could understand, that there were a
• number of Gentlemen entertaining the same feeling es
the Hon. Member, that the present mode of proceeding
did not allow sufficient attention to be given to petitions,
and therefore that the rules and practice of the House
• ought to be altered. He could easily understand their
saying that, but he could not understand when the
Chair had laid down what the rule and practice was, that
the Hon. Member should not either agree to abide by
that rule and practice, or attempt to alter it by a vote of the
House.—(Tory cheers.) He was wishing to interpose his
• own authority and decision against the decision of
the Speaker in apparent conformity, at least, with the
decision of the House.__( Hear, hear. ) He must say that
he did not think the Hon. Gentleman had pursued a
course which was consistent with the respect which he
ought to pay to the House. But as the que tion had been
now discussed, and as he thought the House had
heard sufficient reasons to induce them to perse-
vere in the present practice, and as he did not
wish to add to the arguments that had been adduced, he
would shortly state why he should now propose that the
House should come to a vote on the subject. Ile did say,
on the ground that the lion. Member had stated that he
• would still persevere, and that others like him would per-
. severe in attempting to make speeches by which the Chair
would be placed in the very invidious and unfair position
of calling a Member to order every time he transgressed
the usual practice, without ascertaining whether or no the
House would support him in that position. Lie did not
think the Chair ought to be placed in that position._
(Cheers.) With respect to the question itself, he wished
• to make a remark on what had been stated by his lion.
Fr:end bahind him—that the public business of the House
was of little importance, and he gave what was hardly a
respectful account of its proceedings to his constituents
who had inquired of him on the subject. The Hon.
Member fur Lambeth had called the attention of the
House last Session to the subject of the police of the
metropolis, and had drawn up a very able report. He
( Lord J. Russell) was about to introduce Bills in con-
formity with the Honourable Gentleman's suggestion ; but
what would he say if, at the end of the session, he declared
himself unable to get them through the House of Com-
► mons, because the House had been so entirely occupied in
debatiag and discussing petitions without coming to any
result, that it was impossible for him to get forward these
measures ? In order that they might have some rule to go
by, he should move, " That the House do adhere to the
. established practice with respect to the presentation of
. petitions, as now laid down by Mr. Speaker."—( Great
• cheering.)
Mr. LEADER wished to know what the established
practice:wa,, because there appeared to him to be some dis-
pute with respsct to the matter.—( Cries of " No, no.")
He (Mr. L.) would say, Yes yes. For his own part he
assented that every Member had a right upon the p esen-
tation„, of petitions to state what his opinions were
the subject. When a petition was presented the questioa
was put that it be received, and he should like to know
whether Members had not a right to speak upon that ques-
tion ? There could be no doubt that they had, aid it
would be a most unjust interference with the privileges of
Members to attempt to prevent them from doing so. lie
maintained that they had the right, and those who asserted
that they had not according to the practice of the ilouse,
were bound to show what the established practice was.
If Hen. Members consulted their own convenience, they
would think rather harshly of those who would introduce a
practice inconvenient to them. But he would intreet lion.
Members to bear in mind the chief duties they had to per-
- form were to hear the grievances of the people, and, if
possible, to redress them. Be adopting the motion pro-
posed by the Noble Lord at the head of the Home De-
partment, the House would be preventing the people from
petitionieg at all, because they would feel it to be utterly
impossible to do so with success. The Right lion. Gen-
tleman et the head of the Board of Trade had said there
was no dissatisfaction in the country on this subject. Why
there was actually a petition from the inhabitants of West-
, minster at this moment complaining that their petitions
were not treated with the respect with which they ought.
The other day, at a meeting at Manchester, attend
cd not only by men of Manchester, but by delegates
from almost all the great towns of this country,
when he stated the manner in which the subject was
treated by the [louse, there was one universal shout of in-
dignation, and every possible manifestation of disgust.—
( Hear, hear.) The people knew very well how their pe-
titions were treated by the House, and he was very well as-
sured that three or four nights' discussion on the matters of
their petitions, would have a far mare beneficial effect on
tat • country, than the present practice could possibly have,
of printing the petitions, and then distributing them into
the hands of Members, many of whom never looked upon
them.—( Cheers.) Ile would caution the House against
adopting the course which they seemed about to pursue. If
they would not receive the petitions of the people, and
permit them to present them, they would drive the people
toe tier and more unconstitutional means of making known
their grievances.—(hear.) There were two Conventions
sitting its London at this moment.—( Much cheering.) Did
the House think that those persons would take the trouble
of coming- to London at a great expense, if they considered
that their petitions were received by the house as they
ought ?—( Hear, hear.) The very fact of those two Con-
ventions sitting proved dist there was great dissatisfaction
prevailing in the minds of persons in reference to the way
in which their petitions were received by the "louse._
(110er, bear.) He did trust that the House would not
adopt that course, which would deny to the people the right
to petition, and to Members the liberty of speech.
General JOHNSTONE begged to draw the attention
of the House to the fact that this was a motion without any
notice of it. If the petitions of the people were only to
be laid on the table of that House, and not looked at, nor
their contents discussed, God only knew what was to be-
come of the country _(Hear, hear.) He trusted that
this motion would not go to the vote on the present occasion.
_( Cries of " Question, ques!ion.")
Admiral COD RINGTON said that this was in truth a
motion for rejecting petitions. Such a motion as that
could not fail to bring on a debate, and he for one could
not understand how the Noble Lord would be able to
carry '.is motion into execution after he had succeeded upon
it.—( Cries of " Divide, divide.' )
Mr. HUME entreated the Noble Lord to look at the
consequences of the House coming to the resolution he now
proposed for adoption. If he would only look at the mis-
construction that such a motion would be subject to; he felt
that the Noble Lord would be the last man to subject 114111
self to the effect of such misconstruction. This motion
would certainly intei fere with the right of the people to
petition as well as with the liberty of speech ; and it would
be far better for the Noble Lord not to press his moion at
present, but to give notice of it for a future day.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the Hon. Member
for Sheffield had left aim no alternative.
Mr. J E R VIS hoped the Noble Lord would not press the
motion to a vote on this occasion. Rather than that should
be the case, he hoped the Hon. Member for Sheffield would
withdraw his petition for the present, so that this subject
might hereafter be properly discussed. lie for once wished
that Mr. Speaker should not be left in the invidious situa-
tion of having frequently to interrupt speakers, There
was nothing tangible in the present rule, and if t his mo-
tion weie carried, Mr. Speaker would have to be continu-
ally referred to to state what the rule was; and how were
Members in future sessions, for instance, to know what the
rule was, when perhaps the present Speaker might not
then be Speaker. As a matter of prudence, he hoped the
present motion would not be put to the vote.
Mr. WARD had no wish to drive the Noble Lord into
a hasty decision, and therefore he should have great plea-
' sure in withdrawing his petition, and presenting it on any
future day that might be more convenient to the Noble
Lord.—(Cries of " Divide, divide, question, question,"
from the Opposition benches.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the course he meant to
pursue was perfectly well known from the letter which he
had published three weeks ago.--( Hear, hear.)
Mr. HORSMAN said that he did not regard this as a
discussion against hearing the matters of petitions dis-
cussed generally, but a discussion against hearing the Corn-
law petitions discussed.—( Cries of " Oh, oh," from the
Tory side. ) As long as the discussion was on the ques-
tion generally, he took no part ; but now that he should
vote, he desired to express his wish to the Noble Lord,
along with his other friends, that he should not press this
motion, which was liable to great misconstruction—a mis-
construction of which the Noble Lord would hereafter
have great reason to complain. The Right Hon. Baronet,
the Member for Temworth, had expressed himself ex-
tremely unwilling to bring forward a motion of this kind,
and after all that had been said, he hoped the Noble Lord
would not persevere in a course that must lead to great in
convenience.

lug to Any matter which he wished to bring under the coo'
sideration of the House, the course was for him to give ir°":'
mediate notice of his intention to present that petition on,
future day, which day was named. The petition was the° -
printed, put upon the votes, and placed immediately in the
hands of the Members. The great proportion of petitill'
e,'
referring to subjects which were before the House .
shape of notices of motion, or otherwise, were presented thbi
Members, simply stating the places from which
came, the number of signatures attached to them, and 11130
stating as fully as he pleased, but without reading thell"
(which would be contrary to the rules of tho House) tbli,
contents of such petitions. Those petitions were then Iv"
on the table, referred to a Committee,
either printed o
classed with others of a similar import, the number
.01
signatures inserted in the Report, and, according to the
progress of proceeding (probably within three or four
,
days), then placed in the hands of every Member of the
!louse. These were the points of practice, and Wittig'
stated them the House would perhaps permit him to make
one or two observations. He never forgot that he
was the servant of the House, and that he could only obel
the instructions he received from the House. But• r
as depended on him, he had anxiously endeavoured el,
since he had bc'n placed in that chair to contribute, by *1
the means in his power, to the introduction of order an°
regularity into the proceedings of the House--(Hear'
hear)--and to aff wd, as far as was practicable. equal jolfr
tice to all.—(:Much cheering.) The advantage of the pre(l.
writ practice was, first, that the petitions were preselite•
immediately, ir contents, the number of their gig";
tures, the places from whence they came,
were witho
delay made known, and the petitions themselves pi.°a
in the hands of Members. It was attended with the kill'',
titer advantage that the syl.tem was equal to all Meow'''.
u
and to all petitioners. All petitioners had a right top"-
tion immediately, and every member had a right to Pre
sent those petitions without delay.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL then said it appeared t°
him that the most convenient course now for him to Pill'
sue would be, after what had been stated by Mr. Spesk„,,;"
to move, which he did, that what had been stated by le
Speaker be taken down and printed on the votes of
!louse ; and to give notice that he should to-morrow, vrbat
the House would have had an opportunity of seeing I' thll
had been stated, submit his motion on the subject for
approval of the House.

STANDING ORDERS.•
Mr. BARING moved the appointment of the of
Con
mittee on Standing Orders. Committee to consi,t,:!
Lord Viscount Clive, Lord Ebrington, Mr. Estcourt,s7d
Thomas Fremantle, Sir Montagu Chapman, Sir Edrlcir
Knatchbull, Mr. Wilson Patten, Mr. Pendarves,
rdißobert Price, Lord Viscount Sandon, Sir George Str r.
lind, Sir Matthew Wood. Mr. George Wilbraham,
William Miles, Mr. Pringle.

PRIVATE BILLS.
The following Committee on Private Bills was then IsPi
Cpointed : —Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Mr. Baines, Mr. Robe
live, Captain Gordon, Mr. [lope Johnstone, Mr. Villi.en"
Stuart, Mr. Strutt, Mr. Wrightson, Mr. George Car r,
dish, Mr. Compton, Mr. Handley, Mr. Robert pal fir,
Mr. 13rarnston, Mr. Finch, Mr. Hope (Gloucester),
George Philips, Lord Viscount Eastnor, Mr. Pingnban
I.3triog, Mr. Bell, Mr, Gibson Craig, the O'Conor
Sir Charles Style, Mr. Aglionby, Sir John Yardo 13wilieb."
Mr. Crawford, Captain Jones, Mr. 'namely;
Barneby, Mr. Chalmers, Mr. 'Patton Egerton, Mr. SS n!'
field, Lord Worsley, Mr. Greene, Mr. Pease, Mr. P;
ford, Mr. Edward Rice, Mr. Mildinay, Sir Willigo
fleatlicote, Mr. Halford, Mr. Morgan John o•Colinc
Mr. Lascelles, Mr. Wodehouse.

S
The following werePRIVILEG then nameE .d
as the Commite°ol,o
Lord ,

Privileges :—Mr. Bernal, Mr. Williams Wynn, - ,
Russell, Sir Robert P, el, Lord Viscount Clive, Lor"
count Palmerston, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Shaw Lefevre,
flume, Si Matthew Wood, and all the Knights for Shire',
Gentlemen of the Long Robe, and Merchants, in the lOW
•, PRINTING. hid%
Mr. Labouebere, Mr. Hume, Sir Robert Harry
Sir Thomas Fremantle, Mr. Baring, Lord Viscount fledther, Mr. Vernon Smith, and Mr. Strutt, were aPru.

the Comittce on Printing.
PUBLIC PETITIONS.
Mr. BARING then moved the following Member° 0
compose the Committee on Public Petitions:—Mr. Ocir
William Wood, Sir Robert Peel. Mr. O'Connell,
Robert Harry Inglis, Mr. Hume, Sir Edward Knatchbligr:
Mr. Clay. Mr. Wilson Patten, Mr. Edward Buller,
Greene, Mr. Macleod, Sir William Heathcote, Mr• rres
field, Mr. Yates, Mr. William John Blake. iO6l
Mr. lIUME begged that his name might be om
from the Committee.—Agrced to.

'ING LWS.
Mr. Baring, MrEXPIR. Attorney-GeAneral, Mr. S°l,,i- Sir
General, the Lord Advocate, Lord Viscount Howi"loho
Thomas Fremantle, Mr. Edward John Stanley, Mr• jobn
Parker, Mr. Charles Wood, Mr. Hume. Mr' etr
Jervis, Mr. More O'Ferrall, Mr. Benett, Sir John Guest,
Mr. Bernal, were appointed the Committee on ElPiti'
Laws.
SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND).
Mr. 'WALLACE moved for leave to thing in two
the nature of which he would state shortly, and the P. of
would be still shorter than his statement. The obicio
one was for the better regulation of the Salmon Fist,e c;
Ito
in Scotland, and the principle involved in it will t° sing
the time at which the fisheries commenced, by ca lose
them to begin three weeks earlier and fie
three weeks sooner. The objects be had in
,lic
by that arrangement were to supply the P",,,(1
with a better quality of flab, a larger quantity, se-
at a lower price.—( Hear, hear.) NVith regard to theA
cond Bill, what be proposed was, that with reggir:
those parties who had lost to a great extent their rigt.'lo
possession in that description of property, they olici g
allo-xed to have the right for a a certain period of fi5",,-,3%
with the rod. He would propose to leave the period to
until he had an opportunity of consulting those Nfe°l—„e•
who were acquainted with the fisheries. It evas.n°t -be
cessary for him to make a longer statement then $6 his
felt satisfied that no opposition would be given 10
motion. Leave was then given to bring in the Bi"lt' hod
Mr. BAINES withdrew the motion of which he
ted
given notice for a return of the quantity of corn libergi
from bond in 1837.
The HON. MENtnesc gave notice that to-morrow even'e.ooi
inn he should move for a return of the quantity of
imported into Great Britain within the last five year'
FLOGGING IN THE ARMY. gecand
Capt. BOLDER() gave notice that on the,',." the
reading of the Mutiny Bill he should bring unlinient
andnotice of the
.Hous.e the question of corporal 001'-
prison discipline in the army.
The House then adjourned.
_ 2...

CORN-LAW MEETING AT LEITII.---_,,Pii,tiio
meeting on the subject of the Corn-laws was hei" i; the
Trinity House, Leith, on Friday, Provost White4oo?
chair, supported by the Magistrates, and Messrs. diop-
Hay, Coldstream, Smith, &c. The first resolution
ego.
proving of the present system of the Corn-lawsagooln;
Wishing an unjust monopoly, was moved by Bad° oento
who was of opinion that after the peace, our cc'ntito tb°
neighbours could not be expected to shut their eYessuch
mechanical powers which had raised this country ° theo)•
pitch, and could not he prevented from imitating tons
But the very nature and extent of the conillroog
proved the urgent necessity of enabling our %carer
rate, and thereby be enabled to compotn
population to obtain the first requisite of life at a c those
nations that are so rapidly encroaching on
branch of our commerce. Mr. James Malarcolct•
conded the resolution. Mr. Berry moved, and Mr.,cd
hf
stream seconded the next resolution, which WaSlriength
Mr. John Watson, who said he could not go to the Corn'
of that resolution. He thought the principle of should be
laws perfectly just; but he thought the scale siWor IP
lowered, so that wheat should be admitted at a d,u,ti, as s_t,
when the price was 60s. per quarter, instead of
present. Ile moved a resolution to that effect, 0
not seconded, and consequently fell to the groan"' 100
remaining resolutions were moved and seconded hi Mr.
Philip, Mr. Hutton, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. liamilton•ssocia,
William Taylor moved that an Anti-Corn-law to tb°
vttaht gr,ccs".
r to
tion should be formed ; which was agreed to. ,orkiog
bt
petition founded on the resolutions being read, 3 cal °r
man objected to the clause in it, praying for a
alteration of the Coin-laws." lie thought they cnjob,oo3s
ask at once for a total repeal. This gave rise t star
discussion, in the course of which Mr. Pcddictecting,
maker, from Edinburgh, attempted to address the ;lie al to'
he was indignantly put down. In the cadrtlteratioo
ration was agreed to, and the clause praying for 11.,,,g been
was struck out. 'l he thanks of the meeting IT-
,edir
moved to the Provost, the meeting separate
d•
Advertiser.
PATENT LEVER WA Txts (S 6
With silver double-bottom cases
With silver hunting cases
This celebrated construction (the most secure iroprer
a watch can be made) is offered, with the lateFt,,..l.
ments e. the detached escapement, jewelled in ,'':(1,100_,
capped hand to mark the seconds, hard enamel dittl,..;• oaf'
taming Flown to continue going while winding up, AL
price, by
T•
CO7i SAVORY, Lodes,
Watchmaker, Silver. and Goldsmith, 47, C"nlia
(Seven doors from Gracechurch-etreet)7cbanga.
N.B.—Second-hand Watches purchase Al...."!

Mr. M YLNE could not accede to the observations lie
had heard from the other side of the House. The present
question had nothing whatever to do with the presenting of
petitions. It was simply whether those who presented peti-
tions should be restrained from addressing the House. 'l'he
privilege of presenting petitions belonged to the people,
but when their petitions came into the House, then those
privileges ceased, end the petitioners became subj._et to
the rules of the Hon,e. He thought that the reproach
from the Hon. Member who bad just sat down, might have
been spared—that Members were afraid of the Coro-law
petition-. He would rather ask whether it was not in con-
sequence of the Corn-law petitions that this question had
now been debated as it had been ? As to the threat of the
Hon. Member for Westminster, that there was a rival
Parliament sitting in London, he for one, thought those
Societies ought to acquire a little more power before they
were brought forward a second time as a threat to that
House. —( Cheers. )

Lord STANLEY said that he was perfectly satisfied of
the absolute expediency, from experience, of adhering to
the rule which had been found to be so exceedingly conve-
nient to the dispatch of the business of the House, and by
no means injurious to the interests of the people. He was
perfectly prepared, therefore, to support the motion of his
Noble Friend opposite; but his only hesitation arose from
this—he was sure it would be desired by all sides of the
Howse, that in framing a rule like this, it should be as far
as possible free from the slightest misconstruction.—
(Hear, hear.) He believed there was not a Member in
the House, who had attended to the rule laid down by Mr.
Speaker, who did not understand it; and that rule should
be put in the most plain and formal manner upon the Jour-
nals of the House. If, therefore, Mr. Speaker should
find any difficulty in expressing the terms in which that
rule should be laid down at the moment, he hoped his
shtaok
ecro nss
hi d
oeurl hfoese e l
terms.
Noble Friend would have no objection to give four- and-
twenty 'mounts
tthoe
Mo
other e rSpheaand, pke r i ifn whitMr e
prepared at present to state that rule, then probably his
Noble Friend would subsequently move that Mr. Speaker
having stated so and so to be the rule, such rule be en-
tered on the Journals of the House.
Mr. SPEAKER said he could have no hesitation in
stating the substance of what he had collected to be the
practice, which bad had the sanction of the House dur-
ing several Sessions. The first rule was, that in the
event of any petition being off.A.ed to the House complain-
ing of any grievance requiring redress; that that l iesiti, n
was immediately entertained and discussed. That the
event of any Member offering a petition to the House. mixt-

of
BIRTH
On the 4th inst„ at Cole ford, near Frome, Jane, the rife
of
the Rev. John layton, f a
On the sth inst., yin Surrey-ostreet,son. Mrs. George Brice'
Affs.
a son.
On the sth inst., at No. 1, Bath-terrace,
„,, of e
Henry Shephard Law, of a daughter. ~ Nom'
On the sth inst., at Camberwell, Mrs. B. K •
001°4
daughter.
On the sth inst., Mrs. Edmund Davis, of Wells, se-
, the
of a son. fielo',
On the 6th inst., in. Serle-street, Lincoln's-inn--
svir
lady of S. H. Walpole, Esq., of a son. FA 4
On the 6th inst., in Queen-street, Cheapside, Mrs'
William Andrews, of a daughter. figifill'
Kenningto, _
On the 2d inrt., the lady of James Phillipps, of W-
in the county of Hereford, Esq., of a daughter. the
At Grenille House, on Thursday night, the 310 t1e',41..
Hon. Mr. Eeamish, lady of Francis Bernard Beami"
M.P., of son. OW'
At Lisen, County Tipperary, the lady of Judkin Flog
of a son.
_.....----"--

MARRIED. 1)1 the
On the 6th inst., at St. George s, nano ride, /1,
ver_aquar the
Hon. and Rev. Thomas Cavendish, vicar of i"ve Isabel
Rev. Edmund Holland, of Benhall Lodge, Suffolk, t;_,,insono
Esther, youngest daughter of the Rev. S "
Sir John
Bart., of Rokeby Hall, in the county of Lowth. t'
On the 6th inst., by the Rev J. H. Bailey, A"' 1100
w Law' Pancras Church, Frederick, youngest son of the late • a
Davison, Esq., of Bedford-rovv, and Saltgrass, Hants; vitool-
eldest daughter of Mr. John Gray, of the Nevr-roac,
square.

DIED. MO
On the 30th ult., at her residence, North Brixton,
Mary Ann Easum, aged 31. witlialis
On the 3d inst., at Tunbridge-wells, Mary, wife of - #6.
dash .
Congreve, Esq., of Aldermaston-house, Berkshire, and
of the late Sir William Pepperrell, Bart.

0,
London: Printed and Published by MURDO YOYl4.no,
No. 112, Strand, at The Sun Offices, No. 12, kr"---
Ow outstay of Idialesex.-.-Friday, Vebroary