The Sun.
London, England, 1820-07-17 00:00:00

13ORQUGH

Mr. BBICIIIT presented a Petition from an in-
dividttal named_ James Mills. The Petition.was
brought up, and read. - rt commented- by com-
plaining of the burthens imposed, on the people,
and of_the enormous expenditure of the late
reign, amounting to ,300,000,0001. The Peti-
tioner contended, that the-evits under 'Which-the
country laboured arose-from the, present mode.,of.
returning Members to the House of Commons, by.
which the people Were eicliided.froin the'right of
election, and a.great majority of the House •W'Ore
returned by the influence of a nnmber of Peers,
whose interference at elections was a breach of
the Privileges and of the Standing Orders of the
House. The Petition then proceeded to name
the Peers pes.,iessing Borough influence and pa-
tronage, and to enumerate, by name, the Mem-
bers returned to Parliament by that influence, to
the amount of more than VIO, amongst Whom
were Lord Castlereagh, Mr. Brougham, Sir J.
Mackintosh. and most of the eminent Members
of the House. The acts of a House thus con-
structed, he contended, were not legally-binding.
The Petitioner concluded 'by Offering to prove at
the :Bar:that- this influence existed-, and calling on
the House to expel such Members, and to im-
peach the Peers Who had thus interfeked wiLlt
their privileges.
Mr. HointotTsE seconded the motion for re-
ceiving-the re.titi9n.
14r. ROBINSON doubted much whether the
Petition could be received. Its contents were
insulting to. the _House, and it held out to •the:.
public that the Legislative. Acts were not.
binding.
Mr. W. 'Du etas haVing been' narried" in the
Petition as, one of the Members returned by
Peers' influence, 'disclaimed it in the, strongest,
manner. .

Mr. Serjeant ONSLOW, another Member named
on the part of the Borough that he represented
(Guilford), asserted the charge- to be false and.
unfounded.

Mr. BRIGHT Sllbniitted, that the Petition
should be received.- -He could not think its lan-
guage in.sulting. The-Petitioner asserted.certaita
facts, and offered to prove them at the bar.
• Mr. -HODEIOU3u thought the Petition should
be received ; it only stated what had been assert-
ed over and over again in that House, except that
the Petition pointed out the Members said to be
so. improperly returned.
Mr. LITSHINGTO,N opposed the Petition, being
received; it was a Petition againt the return of
upwards of 200 Members. By the standing or-
ders of the House, all Petitions against the re,
turn of a Member should be presented within•l4
days after the meeting. of Parliament. •
Mr. LOCKHART also opposed the Petition be,
ing received : it modestly asked the House to
expel 200 of its Members, as unworthy of the
public confidence.
The question was then put, and the. Petition
rejected without a division.

GENERAL DE FOURNE.AUX.

Mr. LoctinAßT moved for certain papers rela-
tive to a grant of 20.0001. 'to be proposed on
Monday, to a foreigner, General De. Fourneaux.
: u h
After_ some conversation,ereread a fir
between As
nI
e. shg:
M ton and r. Blair,, the motion swasaagreedto.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought
up his three Bills for regulating the Distilleries
of Ireland, and they v
Right honourable Gentleman also brought in.a
Bill for regulating Bank-notes and Promissory
notesinl relnd, which was read a first time.
Adjourned.