The Sun.
London, England, 1822-06-04 00:00:00

2t
1.:Vo

their doors should be opened so wide as-to admit it. He could
see nothing in the petition before them which was adverse to
its being received. What it contained had often been re-
peated there, and doubtless would be again. Were they "not
accustomed to say that taxation. was grievous? 'Was it not a
fact that pensions and useless offices were -kept up, by which
many Members of the House were under. the direct influence
of the. Crown ? With regard to the standing army, he had
always said that it was greater than was at all necessary for
proper purposes, and it had been used in some instances under
very suspicious circumstances. He could not help thinking
that his Hon. Friend had displayed a little . too much zeal in
moving for the rejection the petition. .
Sir R. WILSON said that the Honourable Gentleman op-
posite could not, as a man of honour, deny that seats in that
House were bought and sold to his own knowledge. Ile thought
the petition ought to be received. •
Mr. C. WKNN had always considered that a petition ought
not to be rejected upon. any particnlar expressions or words
which it might contain, but upon.t4e general spirit in which it
was drawn up: If he looked at the intention from the general
spirit of the present petition, lie thought it was plainly intended
to insult the House. The Bight Honourable Gentleman repeat-
ed the objectionable passages, and said that the language if true
was a justification of rebellion. If it were allowed to pass, he
must own that he knew not where they were to stop, and, by
what it might not be follosied.- He felt that they must make a
stand where they believed there was an.intention to insult the
House, and he should consequently vote for the rejection of the
petition.
_ _

Sir J. NEWPORT thought they were bound to open as far
as _possible the doors of the House to the petitions of the
people, and that by so doing they should best consult the dig-
nity and the authority of the House. To a very large propor-
tion Of what was contained in the Petition he perfectly con-
sented. Could he deritthat in many instances the House of
Commons had heeri:' lavish and wasteful to a degree ? . Had
they not themselves sanctioned the keeping up of useless
offices ? They -could. not therefore deny[the people the right
of complaining that such things did exist. There were cer-
tainly some words in the petition which he regretted, but they
ought not to be scrupulous about expressions in a -time of . dis-
tress like the' present. The House would best consult its own
dignity by receiving the petition.
Mr. Secretary PEEL must confess that the spirit in which
the Noble Lord had spoken upon the subject-was in perfect
consistence with the rules which he -had laid chiwn. If. there
had been any hesitation on the part of his Noble Friend, it
was that of wishing to hear the Petition read a second time; in
order to see if it might be passed over without any sacrifice of
the character of the House. If the Petition had-adhered to:the
topics and the grounds which the Hon. Baronet had laid down;:
he (Mr. Peel) should have comeol the same conclu4on as the.
Hon. Baronet did, as to the propriety of receiving it. But-it
was because he could not. reconcile its.language with those
justifiable grounds of petitioning, that he felt bound with the'
greatest reluctance to vote for its rejection: There was also
a point of form which at once struck him as-being objectiona..
ble in -the wording of the Petition. It was called a remon-
strance. Now if his recollection served him right, it was uni-
formly the custom to call such applications Petitions. He
should not have considered this a sufficient reason 'for rejecting
the Petition ; but when he looked for the animus in which :the
whole-liad.been drawn up, and he foUnd this word remon-
stsancein conjunction with.. the language he had beard in the
second reading of :the PetitiOn; he had no difficulty in dere&
mining that it ought not to be received.. He was convinced
that it would form a rule that would lead to future Petitions of
a still more .objectionable nature.. If the language it con,.
mined were not insulting to; tife liouse;- he:. was at a loss- to
know-what would be_so. - If.-. What the Petitioneri stated were
true,- they had better abdicate this:branch of the legislature at
once. Heassured the House -that it was with the greatest
pain he came to the . conclusion-of voting against the reception
of the petition. -
Mr. J. SMITH did not believe many of the allegations con-
tained in the Petition. The one with regard to the Army was
altogether.false. He wag certain that 'those who composed it,
were wholly.'. incapable of the conduct imputed to them. But
he felt, considerable difficulty in.. rejecting- a Petition of this.,
kind, and he was determined not to do so by what bad fallen
from the Right lion. Gentleman opposite who had lately ac-
cepted office. The Right Hon. Gentleman said, that beim
rejecting a- Petition they .ought to 'be satisfied that there was an
intended insult, and this had not been made out--in the present
case.- He believed that there.were many persons. who' thought'
every word. contained in this Petition to be -true. He, 'how:
ever, did not think.so, and he knew that part of it; which Fe-
latcd to the Army, to be grossly false. .
Mr. Secretary PEEL explained. -
The House then divided on the motion for receiving the re.
tition, when theie appeared -4.-- :: • •-•
For the Motion - - ' 7 55 -
Against it it . •89 • ..
• Majority . -
And the Petition was consequently rejected.
Mr. COKE then rose to present another Petition for Reform
from the County of Norfolk. It was, the Hon. Member said,
from a County he was proud to represent, and it contained the
sentiments of men who sheaved that they were determined man-
fully to speak their minds even in the worst of times. The
Petition was confined to 'a prayer for Reform. It was worded
according to the feelings he possessed himself, and-there was
not an expression in it in which he did not heartily concur. -He
considered that the Country was reduced to poverty and ap-
proaching ruin by the present Administration; an Administra-
tion composed of Ministers who were altogether callous to the
sufferings of the people. Although the Petition had been
agreed to at a most respectable county meeting, he could
scarcely hope that it would be received as it was worded at
present. lie had however derived much satisfaction at Witness-
ing the respectable minority on the late motion for a .Reformin
that House; -and he had no doubt that if the corrupt part of
the majority were taken away, it would be found that that mo-
tion had been carried. '

The Petition was then brought up, read, and (no opposition
being offered to it) was ordered to lie on the table and be
printed. ,
Lord GEORGE CAVENDISH presented a Petition from
certain Landowners of the county of Derby against the Bill
before the House for altering the Corn Laws.—Ordered to lie
on the table.

Mr. CALVERT brought up the Report on the Assize of
Bread Bill, which was ordered to be taken into consideration
on Wednesday next.

Mr. DENISON presented a Petition from- certain Protestant
Dissenters of the County of Surrey, complaining of the disabi-
lities to which they were exposed by the present law, and pray-
ing for relief.—Ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. MARRIOTT presented a Petition from several whole-
sale and retail Grocers of London against,the renewal of the
West India Dock Charter. The. Petitioneis stated that the
Charter had been extended, upon an assurance from the. Co-
mpany in favour of the Petitioners, which had not been carried.
into effect. They prayed that.their Petition might be referred
to the Foreign Trade Committee.—Ordered. ,
Sir W. DE CRESPIGNY presented a Petition from seve-
ral Protestants of Southam a on, against the Be' Licence Bill.
—Ordered to lie on the table.