The Sun.
London, England, 1810-06-06 00:00:00

MARINE PAY.° FFI CE.

Sir Jr NEWPORT postponed his ineanded motion
for the further consideration of the Alarine Pay-Of-
fice Bill, to the next Session. He observed that
although the accounts of the last two year had not
been made up, the House, by a too. hasty consider-
ation, might involve the charaeter.of several respect-
able'individuals on this ground he wished to defer
his proposision. •
.On the motion of Colonel FREEMANTLE, returns

of the amount of sums arising nom the Droits of Ad-
miralty, now in the Treasury, were Ordered to be
laid before die House.

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE.

Sir T.TuaTorr, according to notice, moved that
.there should be laid hereafter before the House an
account of the Public Expenditure of theprecediog
year, previous to the loth of February, and to the
voting supplies for the ensuing year.
Mr. FOSTER and Mr. Rost:' opposed the motion on
the grounds of its impraelicability. •
Mr. P. Mooae supported the motion, and said
that if this measure had been before put into effea,
there would have been since the war a saving to the
Public of too millions. s -
The CHANCELLOR. of the EXCHECIITER said, that
'the accounts were at present made up against the
earliest possible period, he thought that the Hon.
Baronet's obje6t could. not be put in prthice.•
Sir T. TURTON called for a division.—There ap-
peared—

For the motion -
Against it -

MajOiity

- -38

On out return to the Gallery, the,question before
the 1-lou-e was for r2suming.the debate upon. the
• Gloucestershire Petition.

Mr. WHITBREAD observed, that it was rather ex-

traordinary that the yetition had not been present-.
ed by the other Member for Gloucester. He asked
the Hon. Gentleman •who brought it before the
Hose, in case the .Petition was suffered to lie on the
table, what steps he intende-d to take ?
Mr. SWAN said, that he was totally unconothed
• Gloucester. When the Petition was put into
his hands, he did not know it to be personal, but
when he read it, he conceited that it should be made
known to the, relatives of the individual concerned ;
upon which, lie Waited on a Noble Lord, a relation,
and inquired if the family knew of the Petition;
He answered, they bad heard of it ; and; in conse,
quence of its containing certain allegations, he ad-
. vlsed him not to present it to the HOuse.. In,a
subsequent and sinylar conversation, in t. !itch Ser-
jeaut Best participated, it was again decided that the
Petition should not be presetited. He had strewn it

to most of the Members on the other side of the
House ; he had no personal objea, nor did he know
what coarse t( pursue.

Lord DURSLEY said, that to prevent his words
from being misreiwesented, he had committed io pa-
per what lie should now read to the Houie, and
which was in substance as toil!,ws 1 am autho-
rised by my fothcr, the Eli,' of. Berkeley, to assert,
that lam his L.,ldest_son and heir apparent. This de-
.-12ration I cnoild by vrt yui w is opt
qualifications. which are in my possession ; but I
;eel so shocked at the im utation on my title and my
birth, that I prefer the present mode. It is in try
power to afford the House any information it may
wish on the subject."

Mr. Wne-rn READ inquired if the Freeholders
Who presented this Petition could be specified ?
• Mr. Swan replied, he received it from a Free-
_

bolder.

Mr. KENRICK thought, that it was disorderly to
ask such a question.
. Mr. WYNNE asked the Speaker, it-under the
present circumstance of not knowing the Petiti-
oner, it was possible to enter into any further con-
sideration.

The SPEAKER replied, that it was expeaed •froto
every Member, who presented a Petition, to say,
that as far as his belief went, the Petition was law.
folly signed ; it was not necessary; however, that
the Petitioners should come limn the farthest part of
the kingdoM to prove their !laud-writing...
Sir Jottts ANSTRUTHER made a fe'w• observa-
tions,' when the question was put, and the debate
resumed.

Sir S. ROMILLY askel the Hon. Gentleman, be-
fore the question for the Petition lying on the table
shall be put, if it was his intention to produce any
evidence of the allegations.. -

Mr. SWAN said, that he simply moved for the Pe-
tition to lie on the table, he then left it to the House
to aSt as they pleased.
Sir S. ROMILLY did not know what steps the
House could take.—To the Nobie Lord himself no
blame could be attached; he relied•on the assertions
of a parent, and had even bt•en received by his So-
vere gn. Would they suffer this Petition to, lie on
their table to be held out in terr or ern,and for no other
purpose than exciting uneasiness, and producing
Animosity in breasts where the fondest afletion ex-
. istedl—lf the House were to receive this Petition,
it wool(' be hereafter in the power of malignity to
poison conjugal happiness, and to plant thorns in the
'warts of the innocent, by . making the proceedings
of this House a vehicle to publish its libels The
I-louse must see the tn:schief of this measure ; it
was a case without example ; respecting it no party
spirit could exist, and he trusted for its releaion in
the. genercaus lecling;s of the Right Hon. Gentleman
ypposite.
Mr. Kt :mum said, tharthe petition WRS framed
wit(i ctisiderible attention to its not being obnoxi-
Ns, no other Member snggestcd it, he' felt it
tobe Ips duty, to move that the petition should be
TlPtertd to a committee of Privileges.
l4r. TrotNEy wished to knoce from thelearned
whether be would undertakd that the
petitioners (supposing the House teceivtd their Pe-
would proeed. •
bar. •Y,E);Hicr, woal give no pledge. Ile bad
leisnc from ihe Counsel emplo}el; th•tt it Would be
prtersaty to aptly for the Spgalier's.warrant, to en,
force the attendance of U;itnesses to prove the do-
ct.tmentayy evidenceJef.erred to in the Petition;
T.ts.plEy expressed himself dis,atisfied, and
Tr:l 40.itt 4ittLyrity tt.o.rn tf..y iNobic family of lierke.-.:
ley for so doing, dec.tared hi intention of moving
fat the reieflicn. • • • • ••• • -•'

The CHAFC2LijOR of the EXCHrAVER conceived,
that all which the House could de ire, was, that
the party petitionin::; should make good the al:ega-•
tioni. The assurance of his Learned Friend, there-
fore, in his ()Onion was sufficient,
Mr. ItJsz regrettea that the question should have
come before the House, but being before the House
his oi,inion was, that It was cognizable under the
Grenville Act.

Sir J. ANSTRUTHER was of the contrary opinion.
He thought before the Petition was laid on the
table, the House ought to be informed whether any
Hon. Member was prepared to prove the allegation,
viz. that the Noble Lord is not the legitimate son of
Lord Berkeley. If not, then he should Obje6.l to its
being laid on the hble. Some observations in ex-
pianation took place between.Mr._KENll ICE,. Sir J.
ANSTIWTHER, and Mr. TIElibiEY.

. -Mr. FuLica thought the 'EleCtors should have
raised the objeaion at the eleCtion. It was coMpe-
tent, however, for them to object to the. qualifica-
tion, Mid he should be.for doing justice.
Mr. BATlturtsr wished the Hon. Gentleman who
presented the Petition, had asked the Petitioners
whether they were, or not, prepared
,to prove their
Case. He regretted the extreme cruelty and scan-
dal whiCh must. necessarily follow the agitation of
the subject ; but on the whole he thought it impos-
sible for the House to refuse going into the inquiry.
Mr. W. WYNNE entertained a similar opinion
perhaps it would be better to refer it to a Committee
of Privileges.
The SPEAKER put the question for receiving tLe
Petition, when

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL ro,:e, and after stating
,his opinion upon the necessity of attending to the
prayer of the Petition on the ground of justice,
moved as an' amendment—" That the Petition be
referred to the Committee of Privileges."
Mr. CANNING had considerable difficulty on the
subje&. The pia&ical question for the House to
determine was; whether iti deference to certain Pe-
titioners they should enter into the inquiry, which
from all that had transpired, cou:d not be satifaetory
in the result to tee Petitioners. On the other hand,
the inquiry might prejudice the Noble Lord in his
rights. Would the rights of any individual be com-
promised in the event of the House refusing to in-
-quite ? Certainly not. Strong ground for inference'
that the allegations were true might be the result,
but the facts would still remain unproved. The
particular grievance which the Electiirs complained
of-was known to them at the Election, and a long
time before it ; they were bound then to ha‘e made
the objection, which they now di i, a't the Election.
The parkular grievance was a question that related
eirirely to Parliament, unless it was intended that
the interference of Patliament should be circum-
scribed by any body of Electors. The House there-
fore were Cound to exercise its discretion as to re-
ceiving the petition, conceit Jig that no red griev-
ance would go unredressed, but that on the other
hand much hardships, cruelty, rmdslander, would
be experienced by the Noble Fa;nily, if received. He
wbuld.vote fur the rejection of the Petition.
The CHANCELLOR of the Eiienttaueet agreed
'with. his, Ititelit Hut-nable. Friend as to tlO lnd-
,hips and delicacy of the question, but .he would
concur in the vote,. Co, he thoieght the law of the
land v.as imperative as to the petition being receiV,
ed, stating as. it did a cause for complaint: The
House could exercise its di,cretione it had ix'en
agreed on all hands that the Petition .carne under the
meaning, of the Grenville ACt, and must therefore
be taken into consideration. . •

Mr. H. Small was of: opinion the House could
entertain a discretionary rovtr, and s(iould vote for
.
its reitaton.

The House then divided—
For referring the Petition . . 46
Against it . . . . . 9:
• Majority . . . —4;
The -Petition was of course. rcieaed: