The Sun.
London, England, 1815-03-18 00:00:00

raw)) ty. •No •ti).:).P. ilrxt lionse !ex-et •s\iptiorteri
it Gil any "other principle. It was certainly,
be would repeat, a sacred obligation on the
noose to attend with the utmost respect to the
Petitions•of ail his Majesty's subjects, but then
they conid not 'carry that attention to the re-
presentations of any branch of hi, :qajesty's sub;-,
it.,cts 'to ;in extent, as to interfere with that which
:lets due to the lather. There went onte interests
of a peCaiiar not twe'which could not be attended
to ;a the first instance. Upon that principle it
that no Petitions were received against Tax
RN, except nadir certain limitations. He be-
iteVed that his Noble Friend came forward on the
trotives of his own judgment. So he sincerely
believed, did every man in the House. The sim-
ple question was, ,whether according to the rules
ui the House, they could, hear Counsel on such a
petition as that from the City of London, against
the Bill; and conformably to the practice of the
House, and the principle of its rules ? Rules,
which were founded in the essence and the safety
of the Constitution of England. They must, on
such occasions as the present, hold out the same
rule to one that they did to
"all. It was also wor-
thy-of consideratioo, that the Petitions for the
1, ill were nearly as 'omicrons as those against it,
though certainly not so numerously signed. Un-
der such circumstances, a single Petition comes,
desiring to he heard by Counsel against a general
measure affecting- ail his Majesty's subjects. But
in such a case, with all due respect to the City
t)t LoMlon, he would ask, how could they hear
Counsel and evidence en that, and refuse to
hear upon the Petition from. the City of lit istol,
the town and pent of Liverpool, the great ma-
pufactnring towns of Manchester and Birming-
ham, as well as • many others ? This was not a
general measure affecting, in particular, the
interests of individuals, but affecting all his
Majesty's subjects. Neither were their Lord-
ships to proceed upon the views of the Petition-
ers, but upon -their own views of, and judgment
upon the subjects. With respect to precedents,
be did not think there would be found-a single in-
stance to authorise what was now called for, but,
it would he for their Lordships to decide, whe-
ther in thishe, who may in one sense call himself
their servant, was right or not. According to
the role and practice of Parliament, he devilled it
utterly impossible that they could comply with the
prayer of a petition so proceeding, and under,
such circemstances. In their rule of equal justice
ail& equal attention; they could no more pay at-
tention to tile most distinguished Corporation than
to the humblest individual. Upon these princi-
ples their Lordships decision in this case should
proceed, and they should adhere'to the dictates of
that lex et consuetudo Parliamenii, of which they
bad so long experienced the benefits, and which
formed one of the hest supports of the Law and
Coastitution olthis country.
Lord GREY spoke in favour of the motion, and
observed, that the Corporation of the City of Lon-
don were interested in the Measure in a threefold
capacity ; us consumers, as interested in the ma-
nufactures end commerce of the country, and as
being the Corporition of the Metropolis. As to
the first and last points, it was unnecessary to
dwell on them ; and on the second; it was almost
equz.lly tinnecess7iry.. The Corporation of the
City of London, it tv..11 known were almost
all commercial men. But if She Manufacturers of
this country were not able to contend with the
Manufactures of surrounding Nations in the fo-
reign market, there was an end to this country's
commerce ; aud it the present Corn Bill passed,
this would be the case. This the Pe:itioners had*
hilly stated in their Petition. They were there-
fore, according to the strict roles of the House,
entitled to be heard. The only question that
could be on this point was, whether the question.
was of sufficieut importance. But could any one
pretend to deny this ? Who could doubt that
what materially concerned the first necessary was
of the utmost importance The doors of the
louse °light not lobe shut to Petitions. But of
iv :it use was Petition, if it ‘vai not attended to ?
Of the right of Petition he would sae what the
Poet said of Mercy—" It blessed) him that gives,
and hint that takes."-11 the House were not de-
termined to shut the door on Petitions', there was
no reason why they should not attend to the pr tyer
of this Petition. Ile concluded by supportin ;the
motion

Lord LIVZRPOOL said, that the question was
nilt, whet her the Petition of the City of London
car of any other place, should be received ; but
whether the prayer of it should be granted ? Uu
the general principle Of legiAation, every indivi-
thnd had as good it 'right as any corporation to
have•the prayer of his Petition attended to. Pant
when their 'Lordships had laid down a generai
rule, they could not consistently depart from it
in a particular instance. Tlwir Lordships had on
their table two reports orthe Commons, anti one
of the Lords on it. Had not the-city of London
an opportunity of stating any information they
had On the subject during those three Sessions?
The House had Petitions last Sessions as.well as
this ; and the Committee came.to a resolution, that
the Petitioners Rid not support any of their alle;-
.gations ; and that they were prepared to receive
sang information Gn the subject. The City of
London, therefore, had as well as every other
place Jut opportunity-of giving every information
it wished to communicate to the Committee ; and
it it neglected doing •,.() fOr so long a time, Why
should it tune apply for a particular occasion
(41 the tpie,tiola of wliat was the price of the
quarters loaf, comparatively with the price of
Wheat, thery had the Intl evidence, evidence
of the City of London itself. lie was sure that
the City -of Loudon scould;;ive no new information
of k.ny importicnce on the subject; and he should
therefore oppose -the motion.
Lord Jo a is: said, that the cott»try was, in
teatild render it unwise to
Stich circtintsta;icei ass
t) into the subject. There tras an impossibility
on the part of all men to go G;rl under the present
eireannstitoce. '1 he shopkeeper, the farmer, the
manufacturer, fill found au equal stog»ation. I' he
•
petitionerl had last year had :41:1 e-ttin;t” of
Statingauk information, they porasessed, and they
tlid not avail thernsetvei of it, 'f.itt-; w they come
-forward, when tire opportunity it."s
did not think they had any fair clru.n to ask for
an opportunity, which they had so .I ong neglected.
4,r4c Noble Lord who Lad brought forward the