The Sun.
London, England, 1804-02-03 00:00:00

he'en determined, that to become Eleaors they rthist
be rated and liali!e to
.pay e here then would be a
litigated point which would belong to a Committee,
but 'nor to the 'HoeSe to decide. Persons might be
Freeholders and yet be disqualified from voting, by
being women or minors, or possessing Freeholds
under'4.os. per annum. In this Petition the .Peti-
tioners did not state that they had any right.to vote
at the EleCtiOn, and therefore he was of opinion it
could not be proceeded 'upon. He then moved, That
the Order of the Day foi taking into consideration
to-marrow the Petition of certain Freeholders of the
County Of, Middlesex, complaining of an undue Elec-
tion tbr that County,..sho'uld be read—which .being
accordingly read by die Clerk, Air. Fox concluded
by moving that that Order should be. discharged.
The
~CHANCELLOR of the EX,'-',WEQUER
said, he had listened - with considerable attention to
the speech ofthe Gentleman, but he felt it in-
cumbeot.upon him to sot', that the impression made
upon his mind, when this. question was agitated on
the preceding day,-rernained unaltered. lie agreed
with the lion. Gentleman in attaching great im-
portance to the.prese.nt questitin, not only heeause
it involved the constrwtion of an act of the Legis-
lature, but because it likewise involved that most
important right of persons aggrieved to present Pe-
titions to the Legislature, complaining of those
grievances, ..He agreed also with the Hon. Gentle-
man in what he had said with respeft to taking
away a discretion from that House in the cases of
Eleelion Petitions. Notwithstanding this, how-
ever,
,he must oppose tl e Motion of the Hon. Gen-
tleman, because it they interfered in the way pro-
posed in this instance, it would establish a principle
wh;ch might be produCtive of the most dangerous
consequences. The objen of the Clause was, to
lay a restriction upon Petitions, and to prevent the
inconvenience, which would result from Petitions
presented by persons having no description cf in-
terest 10; the event of the Elettion of which they
complained ; it was therefore enacted, that persons
were not entitled to come before the Legislature in.
that capacity, unless they had a right to vote at
such ii:;eaions. Was he to understand that the
Hun. Gentleman meant, that the exact form of words
mentioned in the Clause, tvas to be inserted in
every Petition ?
Mr. FOX, in explanation, said, what he con-
tended for was, that The Petitioners ought to state
that they had a right to 'vote at the elettion of
which they. complained.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
proceeded—He contended, he. said, that if Peti-
tioners described themselves, and stared their griev.
ances in such a way as to be pettedly intelligible
to the common sense of Englishmen, the mandatory
words of the Aft were complied with. If they
looked to the records of Pat;lament, they would find
tltat the Aft was complied with in this instance, in
the same manner as in others, and they should deal
unfairly with people, if after thirteen years Con-
stant succession of precedents, the blot being now
hit by such a proceeding as this, a considerable
grievance should go without redress. He main-
tained, that scarcely any, or at least very fewthpte-
cedents agreed with the Hon. Gentleman's .con-
struaion of the Aft. 111 the year 1790, several ;ie_
titions were presented, some of which were renewed
in 17.91 and,1792 ; one in the'case of Zetiand, and
another in the case of Radnor, in which the parties
described themselves as Freeholders, without ,stat.
I ing any right to vote : there were others in which
the Petitioners had called themselves " legal
tors," in others " Freemen," but none averring,
according to the Hon. Gentleman's view of the Ad,
that they were Elettors at the time the eleftion
took pliiee. All these peritions•were proceeded in
:without objeaion. In the :year 1796 there
.were
no petitions from Freeholders, but there mils one
from *the Freemen of Worcester, in the same pre-
dicament as the others he-had mentioned. From
this review of the preeedenk relating%to this sub-
jett, a must result, if the lion. Gentleman's Mo.
tion was. agreed to, tlrat these petitions •had.been
improperly referred to Committees, and thatiotrf.
'lnittees had unjustly decided-upon them. ii, this.
particular case, if the Honourable Gentlemat's!mot':
tion was agreed to; the greatest hardship would be:
felt; the parties presented' a Petition last Session in-
the terms of learner Petitions of a similar, nature,'
the Petition was renewed at the comtnencement of
the present Session ; no notice Was taken of the in...
formality, and new, at the very last moment, !his'
disclosure was made, and the parties were to be told
that they could not be heard at all. He was con.
vinced that the House would not inflia this hard-
ship upon the parties, unless compelled to, it by the
mandatory' words of the At ; but he averred thitt if•
Petitions were drawn up in the order prescribed by
the Journals, that in re:erring them to Committees
the House only ailed upon them in conformity
with its established usags. If the proposition of
the Honourable Qcotletty;rl was adopted, it must
follow that grievances complained of by a part
"of the People of this Country could not be re-
dressed. Would any pia4tiealeinjury result from a
continuance of what hadtbeen:the usage of the House ?
Certainly not : Let the Petirriliin•go to a Committee,
and. the Committee would decide; whether ,the par-,
ties had o right to be before therro He contended, that
in the present instance, -tLe parties had satisfied the
forms of the House so far, as to entitle them to go be_
fore a Committee. If,,in any Petition there shouldbe
discovered a fraud, or that the parties signing iiwere
women nr Minors, disqualified from voting, nobody
could doubt ' that the Committee had the power of
rejefting theM. He contended, that the words of
the Att were not imp -rative, in• opposition to the
received practice of the House, .and he should there.
fore resist the Motion.