Star.
London, England, 1815-05-02 00:00:00

T 7— ; instance, that woe _were two ways in which .a
.mb,..t may discharge his duty to his Constituents,
u. vr.se oting titeit petition, the first, by doing all in
li ~ rto get it ter-rived ; and second, by doing
every t1:-.itig- to get it rejected--(n tursp,h.) This ap-
pealed to him a petition, not against the Property
'Pox, again;s Ministers, and praying for peace.
This was perfectly regular. It such ingenuity of
construction were adopted in the House, almost no
petition ttld pass the ordeal. It was remarkable
tl,at thi.-,e who opposed this petition, chose dif.
Lien, and that no one could lay his finger
upon anyt.,ssage by %%inch the objection was fdifty
sostaii..t. It was askod by an Honourable Gentle-
pin, (Mr. Peel) weuld the petitioners be satisfied if
wi.re ieitry./ed ? lie (Mr. Tierney) would
sits ter t Without any communication on the
t 0::: thry wcuid—(a bash.) When he looked
to „1/4, r,!!-, et• till, he had doubts whethei it
;.*.r :•• t.J eew taxes, 40 that this being the
.it .t tax, would not. be included. (The
.I.:.vch..r,rier was lure observed to
the Exchequer was, it appeared,
ai I.'ll ,t iitin.,•iir on the subject of the City, Of
(a 'y Su!•j:.:-. to the opinion of the.
..ir. lac cont.:‘;.. tut,. as not extending to the
a Dv. lie could easily see why i.buisters
op; nsca the petition. They were unwilling to record
own unpopularity, which in the City of London
airont ted almost to execration. He regretted that,
the the retition was not directly against the
PiiTeity Tax. Bat this was not its object. The
Property 'fax was not that against which the meet-
ing pie posed to petition. He would appeal to the
'worthy Alderman himself, was the meeting called to'
petition against the Property Tax ? (Sir W. Curtis,
Cei ta Ir—upon which Mr. Tierney instantly
sat dint t-..)
Mr. XV A LIACE said, the Petition was substan-
ti illy against the tax, and called upon the House to
vin&cate its own dignity, by rejecting a communi-
catitin n:ade in toms so violently libellous, and
which the petitioners must have been aware was in-
.tchnisj
Mr. BARING' thought it prima facie evidence of
the intf&nsiveness of the petition that the worthy Al-
clet man had telt it his duty to present it. He would
sagge-st that in cases of doubt there should always be
a in favour of petitioners. He doubted whe-
dirt- a direct petition might not be admissible against
the comiiiinroce of a tax, which was the case before
the House. 'lle Property Tax was continued in ups-
radon like the annual Malt Bill, or any of the other
annual '2:tic. In this petition, however, there was
rio prat} ea 4:2.l;nst it. He thought, to enable the House
to form a fair judgment, the petition should In read.
Lord CONIVION wished that the petition should'
1w hr. up, in ender that it ;night be read, and
then the i-lw:se c: de upon it on its met its,
riot by technical formal:ty.
:)111.11 ttinly.,..t it veTv that
it
any t ctrl; the prayer
et the fieti.ion, it would have been stated by the
li•sittty t,!ermatt who had so reluctantly presented
it, ante; indeed, in dna case, %%until n.thave pre-

It A:.111.
Zvt W. Ci; RTES s.tiii, he had great doubts of the
-fait In ato the 1-I..te.e, and that he
ct...:int.:.e,.ted oft the subj.:et will a Right Ho-
slooral•ac (tae Chancellor ut the /
Exclav-
e...! the itv hi, eve.
a
•I'.e CIiANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
exi lessed his regie: that the worthy Aideani us had
Lot opened mote fully the mattir of this petition whin
Le fi.st offered it to the attentinn of the House. It
vould, he apprehended, have saved much discussic.n•
upon It.
Hr. VONSONBY said, the present debate was the
s'l -aegest he had ever known in that House. It pre-
ss:le...l Eke txtraordinat y spectacle of a Member feeling
it his duty to present a petition, but strenuously ar-
gumg against its being received. It this petition yin.
fated any rule, why not state specifically both the
sole and the violation. He understood it to be con-
genial to the Censtitution and character of the House
to rave ur the admission of petitions against public
prtivances. This doctrine of implication was doubt-
dangerous. He understood this rule, to di-
reit that no petition shall be received against any
theat.o:e.tctually pending in the Ways and Means of
the year. But then such petition must pray directly
againsi any Legislative proceeding. He has read this-
petition,.and saw nothing in it sot ffensive as had been
introduced into petitions on former occasions, which
the House had not rejected on that account. fit: sug-
gested ,:tat the petition was not yet read, and that it,
stdaild be read at length in the usuai way.
.11 this
übjeetion were ailowcil, the least mention of any
~nLatt-,.; ti..ancial measure would vitiate a petition....
] Ie thoue,la it very unwise in Ministers to oppose this
I.i:titian:, in a case same they were themselves made
11 aties, aril for his part, it on the rpposite bench, in
the sante cireintsratices, he should rather vote for it.
ti; r W. C t t KT l:; wished the Petition to be read.
Mr. H. SUMNER against any technical oh.
jection to ae petition. He wished that it should be
tlntr,,,lit up and read, and thiught that the Property-
Tax wa-, tut incidentaiq trentionei.
Mr. Si't.../..KER sta!:-.1, that any Honourable
I.le.tr.:;el who Urescltit:(l a petition was bored to state
the st.h.,ta,.ce of it, but that to have it ze:td tally it
Plu lit be brought up and put into the hands of the
cie.k :It toe With regard to the rule, he con-
cetved it to aj...rly to ail fazes pending before the
I i false.

The put;tion was then brctight up without a divi.
sion, 1;y it:: Chi k. at the table.
Si...EAKER pit the questiun—That the yeti.
fait cn die teb!e.

The CIiANCEI.I.OR of the EXCHEQUERI
sAid, that now the flow:- had heard the petition read
at there c,alld nut be, he conceived,
doubt as to its reAl obj:ct. The tact was, that them
no) irrito.ekiiate er fur any oject, but the Pro.
itaty Tax allud,:et to as any whir
matter th H would app.
v 0 the 11,liost to Hie tendency of estabn.hing such
a prc:)-dri:t. this were allowed, this important
tune alydit ;:e• evaded in future without the leas,
diffn
ABERCROMBIE said, that whether the
opii:ton expic.ssed by the petitioners of that nous,
was well or ill founded, it was cert,:iilly true dia.
the }louse had manifested a greater disregard
bums trove its Coustituents tiding ihi ?meat Ses-