The Sun.
London, England, 1829-02-27 00:00:00

to which Smuggling was carried. If that was carted, ;
it was the c,reatest ofa!t rea.-ons why it should be inquired
into.—(Hetr.)--Tite ilon. llember wishes the petitioners
to percnrer.-, atol they would End the laws would be of
great benefit.- Ile (General Gaseoyne) would ask, how
could me:), Who only cartictl a few shillings ;). week, sur-
rounded by a -forcing fan:dy, per,evere? Au was con-
vinced A dMlllikit rte imlnediirv'i to 1.) d.
The pa-it'ons were then hircoteat up and read.
Sir ROSERT KING said he was entreated to present'
a petition from ao. imlicidual named Loughith agair.st the
leg,:,ty of return of Daniel O'C)ohnell, Esq. for the
County r Clare, and pral'irig he might be heard by
Gunned at the Bar of tit): Ilonse.

The SPEAKER informed the Hon. Baronet, according
to the standing eiders, the pctitiim was toe Lite. ,
Sir ROBERT KING said he sh•itild have presented it
yesterday had there been a House.
Some conversation teliowed in a low tone, which it was
irnpossild:. to heir in tile gallery, at ;he conclusion,
The SPEAKER ini'‘,rmed the Hon. lkhinher that yes-
t rday would have been one day too lade.
The petition wae then withdrawn.
Mr. BANKES prwented two petitions against any
further concessions to the Roman Catholics.
A new Writ was ordered int the elertima nt a Member
for Corfe Castle, in the room of Mr. Pesch, who had ac-
cepted the Chiltern lituich-qclA.

Admiral SOTHERON tore,ented fourteen petitions
from places in the twenty of Nottingham, against any fur-
ther concesitiorl. to the flown Catholics.

Mr. ESTCO4.7IIT presented a petition from Stafford-
shire, against the Roman Catholics. He stated that he
had always opposed concession, and had seen or heard
nothing to induce him to change his opinion.
After a few words from Lord MILTON, the petition was
ordered to be p►inted.

Mr, STCOURT also presented two other /s;4lar pe.
tie oni. -

Lord DUNt3ANNON presented 24 petitions from the
counties of ..ilkenny and Tipperary, praying for unquali-
fied Emancipation. Also two petitions against the Sub-
letting Act.
Nr. HART DAVIS presented a petition against the
Catholics, from the Mayor, Magistrates, Clergy, and Inha-
bitants of the city of Bristol. He wished to call the at
tendon of the House to the number of signatures, as he
believed that no petition, which had ever been pre-
sented from the city of Bristol, had been so respectably
and numerously signed. It was signed at a public meeting
of the inhabitants in Queen-square, where a statue at
King William the Third happened appropriately to be
placed. The number of persons was estimated dif-
ferently, the fullest accounts stating them at upwards
of 20,000. It had not only been signed at Bristol,
but the neiglibauring village of Clifton. Persons hail
been appointe.l to examine the signatures, when it ap-
peared that the petition had been signed by a great number
of Ladies, whose signatures were very ungallantly erased,
though they probably formed the . most interesting part
of the petition. After that examination the petition
contained 58,894 signatures, which was the strongest ma-
nifestation of the public opinion he had orer witnessed in
that city, and he hoped would lime the proper influence
on his Majesty's Ministers.
Lord MILTON said, that the Hon. Gentleman described
the petition as from the city of Bristol, and said that it
was signed by 38,894 persons. Were those signatures
from Bristol itself?

Mr. HART DAVIS observed that he had already stated
that the petition was from the city of Bristol, and the pa-
rishes within ten miles.
Mr. BRIGHT said that he could not undertake himself to
speak on the subject ; but from a list which had been trans-
mitted to him, and which be held in his hand, it appeared
that 24,712 of the petitioners were residents in Bristol itself.
Mr. TENNYSON o'lerved that the last census for the
city of Bristol rated the inhabitants at 87,000, he would
say he believed them to be 90,000. The males were
rated at 38,000, including of course the male children,
who must be computed at half the number, by which cal-
culation the petition of the Hon. Member would be found to
contain the whole number of males in Bristol, including the
children. A counter-petition had been presented bearing
1700 sigaatuees, which number must of conrse be deducted;
and, under such circumstances, he conceived that the

petition was one which the Hon. Member should have
been ashamed to present. He had another objection to
make to it, that the word " undersigned" had been erased
and the words " Mayor, Magistrates, Clergy," inserted.
He would not reject the petition for this, but he stated the
fact for the purpose of showing in what way it hail been got
tap, and the spirit which influenced its supporters. With
regard to the counter-petition, he deprecated the practice
which had been pursued to prevent persons from signing it,
the Mayer having interfeacd at a public meeting, and dis-
persed it on the ground that the public peace was endan-
gered by it.
Sir T. LETHBRIDGE did not expect that a petition
which came from such a place on such a question would have
been received in the manner it had been. He regretted, and
was surprised at the observations trede by the Hon.
Member opposite, and would assert on his own te,•ponsi-
bility that a more faithful and honest manifestation of the
public opinion had never been brought before that House.
He much regretted that latterly petitions had been received
in the way they had, by Members on the other aide of the
House. It was in direct opposition to the principles which
they always had the credit of supporting. It was fit that there
should he the same respect paid to petitions o❑ one si-le
of the question as on the other. The petition now nn the
fleor of the House was entitled to more attention than per-
haps any that would he presented during the present Session.
With respect to the Right Hoe. Secretary of State, he (Sir
T. Lethbridge) had had no opportunity of addreeeing the
Houle since the Right Hon. Gentleman's conduct had
been strongly animadverted upon in that Heusi., and out
of *tat House in a most shameful manner—in a manner
disgraceful to the British nation, disgraceful to the British
Press, and in opposition to the hest feelings of the country.
(Hear. )—He was quite sure that the Right Hon. r"•vu-
tle:rtan had not come to the point at which he had arrived
without great deliberation, and that hie purposes were these
of honest integrity, deseriing general confidence, and not
reprobation.—(Hear.)
Sir R. WILSON perfectly agreed with the Hon. Ba-
ronet, that the petitions of the people ought to he received
with the greatest respect ; and he would not himself hesi-
tate to animadvert on the coedect of any Hon. Friend of
hie who might seem disposed to treat them slightingly,—
But his objection to the present petition was thit it had
been signed by persons who, while themselves exercising
the right of petitioning, had prevented others from exer-
cising the same right in signing the petition which had
been presented the other evening by an Hon. Friend of his.
That was his objection.
Mr. HART DAVIS explained the manner in which the
two Bristol petitions had been lying for signatures, the one
at the Guildhall, the other at the Exchange ; the mistakes
which had occurred by parties signing the wrong petition ;
the applications to erase those names ; the refusal ; the
subsequent riot, breaking of tables, &c. ; and the proprri-
tion made by the Mayor to withdraw both petitions ; but
we were unable to follow the Hon. Gentlemen through
his statement. He admitted that hot for those occur-
rences the petition in favour of the Catholics might have
received a few more signatures, but only a few.
Mr. O'NEILL expressed his cordial approbation of the
constitutional arguments of the Hon. Baronet, the Member
for Sornersetsiaire.
Lord JOIN RUSSELL protested against the state-
ment of the Hon. Baronet, that there was any disposition
on his (Lord John Russell's) side of the House, to discou-
rage the right of petitioning. On the contrary, that right
had ever been considered by his side of the House as most
sacred, and no men were more disposed tai pay the deepest
attention to the wishes of the people of England expressed
by petition. But it was not because they to highly valued
the right of petitioning, that when efforts were made to
produce a factitious expression of opinion, they were called
upon to abandon the privilege of critically examining any
petition that might he offered to their consideration. It
had been stated, and he had not heard any contradiction of
the statement, that a certain number of the signatures to
the petition just presented from the city of Bristol were the
signatures of boys at school, and of boys under ten years of
age. [ Sir. H. Davis denied the accuracy of this statement.l
He was glad to hear the Hon. Member fur Bristol contra-
dict the statement. One of the Bristol newspapers certainly
contained the names and ages of several boys whe signed
the petition. Supposing that to have been actually the
case, would not the Hon. Baronet allow that it would fur-
nish a sufficient ground for inquiry ? For let him see in
what way the question stood. There had been no prope-
eition to Parliament to take away any of the rights of his
Majesty's subjects, laity or clergy. On the contrary, the
question which the Crown had called upon Parliament to
consider was, whether the Roman Catholics could be ad-
mitted to an equal share of political power, consistently
* with the preservation of the rights and privileges of the
Protestant faith. On this question all the men of genius
and talents in this country had been exercising their abili-
ties during the last five and twenty years. Was it too
much to say, that we should place greater reliance on the
opinions of children under 11 or 12 years of age, than on the
opinioni of such persons? Were the sentiments of such
great men as Pitt, and Burke, and Fox, and Grattan, to
he for a moment compared with the sentiments expressed
in a petition got up by artificial means, and signed by
many pernia Win MIA 91 Acceslity be x golly