The Sun.
London, England, 1822-03-23 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT,

110 USE OF LORDS, FRIDAY, MARCH 22.
The House met at ten o'clock in the morning,
and proceeded in Appeals.—The Archbishop of
DUBLIN and Lord STEWART took the oaths and
their seats.--Mr. BEDFORD, from the Exchequer,
presented an Account of the Income and Charge
of the Consolidated Fund, for the year ending
the sth Jan. 1822.—Ordered to be printed.
On the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWN,
a Copy of the Instructions issued by the Board
of Excise to their Officers, relative to prOsecu-
tions for selling Roasted Wheat, or any substance
under the denomination of Breakfast Powder,
which was ordered a fortnight ago, was ordered
to lib produced forthwith.
_ _

The Malt Duty Repeal Bill was read a se-
cond time, and committed for Monday.---Ad-
journed till Monday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Mr. MASON, from the East India House, brought up certain
Returns to the Orders of the House, relative to the number of
Cadets and Surgeons sent out to India in the course of last
year.—Laid on the table.
A Gentleman from the Exchequer Office presentetY a Return,
shewing the progress made in the Redemption of the Public
Debt.—Laid on. the 'table.
TURNPIKE LAWS AMENDMENT.
The Turnpike. Laws' Amendment Bill went through a Com-
mittee of the whole House, and was ordered to be recommitted.
Lord J. RUSSELL presented a Petition, complaining of
Agricultural Distress from Owners and Occupiers of Land in
the Hundred of Norman Cross.—Ordered to be-printed.
MR. HUNT.
Mr. LAMBTON presented a Petition from Newcastle-
upon-Tyne, signed by upwards of 4000 people, praying for
' a remission of the seventies ;inflicted upon Mr. Hunt dur-
ing his confinement in Ilchester Gaol, by his liberation from
that prison. The Petition, had it remained a few days longer,
would have received three or foUr times, the number. With re-
gard to Mr. Hunt's ill treatment, there could be no doubt, and
that the Magistrates of the County did not interfere as they
ought. He moved that the Petition be received.
Sir M. RIDLEY begged to state, that he had been instruct-
ed by a large portion of his constituents to say that this Peti,-
tion had not been agreed to at any public meeting, and was en-
tirely of a private nature, and only the Petition of those who
signed it.—(Hear, hear !)—lt had not been shewn to him, and
he did not know why ; but although he thought Mr. Hunthad
been hardly treated, he would never countenance a Petition got
up like the present, in a private manner.
111 r. DICKINSON said it was not fair to asperse the conduct
of the Magistrates of Somersetshire when they were not present,
nor their conduct before thesHouse.
Mr. DOUGLAS said that a copy ef the Petition had been
sent to him to present; but he had not thought it sufficiently
respectable to do so.
The Petition was then brought up and read.
Mr. FREMAN TLE objected to-the Per;tion lying on the
table, on account of the expressions contained in it. The first
expression was,- that " the corruption of that House Was noto-
rious," and the last, chz:ging his Majesty's Ministers with hav-
ing advised the King to express his satisfaction at the slaughter
of his own subjects.
LUSHINGTON opposed the Petition on the same
grounds as the Hon. Member who had preceded him. Besides
the objectionahle expressions pole ted out by the Hon. Member,
there was one which declared the opinion of the Petitioners to
be, " that the-loss of property and health sustained by Mr.
Hunt were adequate 'punishment for his merely having at-
tempted to chew how that Honourable House might be made
still more Honourable." This, surely, was language which
'could not be tolerated in any Petition addressed to that House.
—(Hear, hear, hear 1) -
Sir R.WILSON was surprised to hear the objection urged
(in the score of the Petitioners expressing their opinion that
there was corruption in the formation of that House. How
was it possible for the people of England to have a different
opinion, after the confession of a Noble Marquis in this
house the other night--that it was necessary to the machine of
Government, that there should be a certain number of useless
placemen in the House ? That this was the. case, was noto-
rious throughout the country. He also begged to remind them
of the case of Lord Fife, not long back, who was dismissed- for
voting according to his conscience. With regard to, the thanks
given to the Manchester Magistrates, it was perfectly' true,t,hat
there was no expression of regret mixed up with the thanks
given for conduct which led to the- slaughter of vnany of the
King's subjects. He could not but think that the objection on
account of disrespectful language was nothing but a frivolou.
pretest.
Mr. JAMES could not see how any objection could be main:
tamed against the Petitioners declaring their opinion that cor-
ruption prevailed in that House, when the late Speaker said,
from the Chair,, that " the corruption of that House was as no-
torious as the sun at noon day, and practices existed which
would have made our ancestors start from their seats with in-
dignation."

' Mr. WYNN could not refrain from paying the Hon: Gen-
tleman who spoke last a compliment on the accuracy of his
constitutional and historical knowledge.' In a matter belong-
ing to the history of the last ten years, he had managed to
make, unintentionally, no.doubt, a gross Misrepresentation of
a fact. It was so incredible that the predecessor of the Right
lion. Gentleman in the Chair could have so far forgotten his
duty as to have used the expression attributed to him, that he
need only appeal to" the memory of all those 'who sat in
that Parliament for a refutation. On the occasion to which
the Hon. Gentleman alluded, the late Speaker merely-meant
to express his horror at the terms used in speaking of such
practices. With 'regard to the Petition before the House, he
really thought they could not for a moment hesitate to reject
it. The whole and Sole object of it appeared to be, to vilify
and degrade the House of Common's and the Administration.
Even if it contained, however, nothing about the House, he
would reject it, on account of the Manner in which it spoke of
the administration of justice. The passage to which he allud-
ed spoke of " vindictive prosecutions in the Courts of Justice
,on account of Mr. Hunt's exertions to bring about a Reform in
Parliament." He knew it might be answered, that if they had
the consciousness of rectitude, they might defy these insinua-
tionsas slanders. That was a position, however, which he
would not admit ; for he was convinced that no institutions,
however,wise in policy, or sound in principle, could withstand
the attacks of calumny, unrepressed by themselves.
Mr. BENNET remembered perfectly well the expression
used by the late Speaker, which was; that—" suck practices
would have made our ancestors startle with indignation ;" and
the occasion on which l used it was, where a corrupt traffic
for the purchase of a place had been carried on, and was not
even disavowed by the parties to it. But the declaration, that
corruption was notorious as the sun at noon day, was used by
the. late Mr. Ponsonby, and hot by the Speaker, as supposed
by his Hon. Friend (Mr. James). With respect to this Pe-
tition, however, he was sure that much stronger language had
been received by the House and if this were rejected, they
would establish a rule, that all accusatory petitions for the fu-
ture could not meet with a reception from th,-..7n. None but
of a congratulatory nature were to be received henceforward.
For his own part, he did believe that the prosecution of Mr.
Hunt was vindictive, and for political purposes. If a Peti-
tion went out of its way for/the purpose of insulting the House,
he could fully understand the House rejecting it ; but it was
not at all consonant with his notions of what they ought to do,
to reject a Petition, the fair construction of which was the nar-
ration of a grievance, and a call for justice.
Mr. MANSFIELD put it to the feelings of the Honourable
Member for Shrewsbery, 'whether he thought that the term
" corruption," so generally applicable to all the Members of
that House in the first sentence of the Petition before it, could
be pleasant to the ears of any gentleman who felt conscious or
not deserving it. For himself he could say, he was not sent -
there through any corrupt' means, but by the unbiassed voice
of a numerous and most respectable body of Constituents ; •
and though his votes might not be in accordance with the sen-
timents of Honourable Gentlemen on the oppdsite benches,
they were never given under the influence'of corrupt motives--
motives which he disdained as fully as any Gentleman in that
House. He could •not support a Petition which in its first
sentence so offensively accused that bcdy from whence it after-
wards proposes to seer redress for injustice.
Mr. HOBHOUSE thought it rather strange that the Hon
Gentleman should take all the corrupt imputations of the Pe-
tition to himself. The fact, was, that the Petition merely
imputed that which he thought no one at this time of day
would deny, namely, that there was an unfortunate pro-
portion of corruption in the constitution of that Assembly— ,
The language of a Noble Marquis had already been alluded .
to on this subject, and it was only the other night that an
Honourable Member was talking openly about buying and
selling seats, and was only noticed by the House by a laugh.
Why were they to be so squeamish then upon similar expres_
sions coming from others ? Petitions of a stronger nature had
been received by the. House, and that in the time of Mr. Pitt,
and Mr. Burke. With respect to the reflection on the Courts
of Justice, it did not strictly apply to the administration of •

*tire, but to prosecutions of the Crown, and surely the people
had a right to complain of that. " Ile-hoped Honourable Gen-
tlemen would tvithara:w their opposition to this Petition lying
on the table.
Mr. LAMBT()N,. in answer to the objections stated against.
the Petition he had -presented, begged in the first place to ob-
serve; that it did not pretend to be any thing else than the pe-
tition of the undersigned. The reason why public notice had
not been given was, because there was not time for it, as it was
desired that the petition should be presented to that House
before the motion of the Hon. Member for Westminster was
made. Another reason was, that there were generally so
many Obstacles thrown in the way of things done by public
meetings, that it was thought advisable not to take that course.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite did not think that there was any ira-
pediment to a full and fair expression of sentiment in private
petitions, during the 01136 of the hole-and--corner addresses.
lie did justice to the consistency of the Right Hon. Gentleman
opposite (Mr. Wynn) who was in the habit of opposing all
petitions containing words that might not suit e delicate
fanay or squeamish taste of Honourable Gentlemen opposite.
As to the charge of corruption, he had himself heard a Noble
Lord (Lord Cochrane) state in that House the market price
of a seat 5,0001. he believed but he was not called to order.
When the people of England therefore knew of the existence
of avowed and notorious corruption, they ought to be allowed
to express it. He hoped the House would not refuse to allow
the petition to lie on the table. He believed in his conscience
that the object of the petitioners was not to insult the House,
but merely to obtain a liberation of .Mr. Hunt from prison.
Mr. PEEL said he had not been present at the reading of the
petition, but from the copy he had seen of some of the expres-
sions contained it, he could not come to the conclusion of the,
Hon. Member, that there was no intention to insult the House
(Hear, hear !)—He was ready to admit that it would be a most
imprudent course in that House to reject on all occasions the
free expression of the sentiments of the people ; but he was
sate the Hon. Gentleman would in candour allow, that there
must be some limits to such expression, even leaving out of the
question the dignity of the House. This was not a question of
dignity ; for it was imperative on the House, in discharge
of the important trusts confided to them, not to sanction the
abuse of the important right =of petitioning the Legisla-
ture—(Hear.)—To permit such license of expression as this
petition exhibited was prejudicial to that right. It was plain,
then, that some line must be drawn, and the languagF of this
petition came,within that line ? It was not, in his opinion, lan-
guage that ought to be addressed to or received by that House;
it was a studied attempt to throw insult upon it. A slur was
thrown upon the administration of justice in this country,
which was charged with inflicting a vindictive punishment on
Mr. Hunt, because he made an attempt to bring about a re-
form in Parliament. Again, that House was told that it ex-
isted by notorious corruption. If they allowed such language
to be addressed to them, what course would they have left to
pursue if other petitioners, availing themselves of the prece-
dent thus established, should approach the House in a more
decided tone ? Thinking that it they received this petition, a
precedent would be established, not only derogatory from the
dignity of that House, but also dangerous to the valuable privi-
lege of petitioning, posseised by the people of this country, he
felt himself called upon to reject the petition.--(llear, hear !)
After a few words from Mr. Doti-Gras, in explanation, and
Mr. Moalcir, the House divided on the motion that the Peti-
tion lie on the table.
For the Motion - - - '22
Against it - - 123
Majority against it - - —lOl
Mr. HUME presented a Petition from the Inhabitants of
Paisley, praying that the House would interfere to procure
the immediate liberation of Mr. Hunt. The Hon. Member
b _egged to say that he was not aware of any one expression in
the Petition to raise any objection to its being received by the
House. He concurred in the sentiments contained in it re-
specting the severity of Mr. Hunt's sentence and treatment.—
Read and ordered to be printed.