Star.
London, England, 1817-02-01 00:00:00

- -
Honourable Baronet, and the rest of the House,
must stay to hear whether the petitions were not
couched in language too gros; to be received. He
had himself refused to present a petition some time
since, uecanse be was nut aegis tinted with the au.
thenr;csty of the facts which it set forth, and not on
acenunt of any ineir,.eniety in it; wording.
Mr. BROUG HA %I stated, that the practice of pre-
senting petition; to I'mhainent was not submitted to
the sameregol.,tions as in Courts of Lase, where tfe
facts mutt 1,. a,:certained by the evidence of
witnesses. d ,topinre the Honourable and
1....!arn0d Genii r t' revioe the new rules which he
had laid tiny n hi h ..ea, and adopt those of the
14,,u,r. He avt ty' • 'en see that he had totally mis-
conceived t!ie (Int y 4 a Member of Parliament. it
WAS eert4inly All evil to present petitions containing
ch.ogns agatn,t an ind.viattl—but then he would
tee tit • same opportunity of repelling them, and,
therefore, even on that ground, no obstacle should be
put to the right of petiti,ll.
The AT FO RN EY GENERAL explained.
Mr. C. W. W YNNE conceived, that if it were the
duty of a Member of Parliament to present Petitions,
it was also his duty to read them. The House had
nn other protection against insult than the confidence
it placed in its Members, to judge of what might be
offensive. He would certainly allow a very great la-
titude to petitioners when they spoke of their griev-
ances ; but, as in the Petition Which had been rqected
the other night, the petitioners did nut allude to their
own grievances, when they said that they saw con-
tending factions in that House, ,4 mocking the public
by protracted debates." No; they only meant to
cause the House to enter upon its Journals that abuse,
of itself. It was not necessary to examine witnesses
before consenting to present a Petition ; but when it
contaieed charges against an individual..every Mem-
ber would best do his duly if he did not present it,
unless the person against whom it was directed should
bare been infotmed of it, and should have had time
to enable another Member to take his defence; other-
wise the harm would be done by the publication and
wide dissemination of the charges, long ,before their
refutation appeared. As the Honourable Baronet
said that he had not read the present Petition, the
?louse had no security that it was not filled with un-
warrantable language.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE observed that the question
now stood on a totally different ground, as the Spea-
ker, the highest authority in the House, had declated
that the Honourable Baronet had complied with all
that was necessary.
The SPEAKER begged leave to explain. He
bad said, that as to language, no Member could de-
cide for the blouse in any other way than by his own
judgment; but he had never stated that any Member
cabld be compelled by persons out of the House to
present a l'etition without having read it.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE certainly thought that the
words which he had quoted as coming from the
Speaker, had fallen on his ear; he might, however,
have been mistaken. As to the policy of the present
doctrine, and the time of adopting it, both were very
objectionable. He would go as far as any one to
admit Petitions from the People against their grim',
Mutes. If they thought the House corrupt, though
it might be unpleasaut fur the 'House to hear it, they
had a right to say so. lain if they willingly intro-
duced wanton insults into their Petitions, they should;
be rejected, though even then it might be objectime-
able. But now an additional barrier was put to the.
right of presenting Petitions.--(34oun of Hear, hear.)
A strict examination was enforced, and every Meta.
her who attempted to present one was compelled to
- endure a cross-examination, on a manor of opinion
only.—(Hear, hear, bear.)—He could only make his
escape by.saying that he had read the Petition. The
Honourable Baronet had read the prayer and the sub-
stance of that which he bad to present, and had said
fairly, that it be were obliged to prepare every day
for such cross•examination. the whole time of the Ses•
alit would prove insufficient. The only question,
therefore, now was, whether he had read the Petition
verbatim, throughout, and tould answer for the pro.
priety of its language ? But the character of a Mem-
ber might.be involved in his answer. The Honour-
able and Learned Gentleman opposite had refused to
present a Petition, because he was ignorant of the
facts which it contained; but in such a case, he (Mr.
Abercrombie) would act as a former Member of that
House (Mr. Whitbread). and tell the petitioners that
be would not support their Petition, but thought it his
duty to lay it Wire the House. He thought that
the Honourable Baronet had stated all that was re-
quired, and that no reasonable objection could be
snide to the reading of the Petition.
Mr. CANNING did nut mean to enter into the
Merits of the question, whether it might be right to
ascertain tie facts contained in a Petition before
presenting it, or to prrs,nt it without any such pre-
vtous inquiry ? On that point every_Member might
Act according to his own discretion. But when the
. authority of the Speaker, the first authority in the
House, bad laid down the rule, that no Member could
present a Petition without having read it, there was
no cross-examination; but to every Petition which
the Honourable Baronet presented, any Member had
a right to ask him whether he had read it ? and if be
said tin, the Petition could not be received.
Sir GILBERT HEATHCOTE contended, that
it was mere matter of opinion.
Mr. CANNING explained.
Sir FRANCIS BUItDETT said it was extremely
possible to imagine that a Membei of Parliament
could not read writing—(dlevzh.)—Tbere certainly
was a time when many Members who sat in the House
could not; and if the present do:trine was to be en-
forced, it would be necessary to make reading one of
the quAltfications for a seat in Parliament. All he
mould say to the Right Honourable Gentleman was,
that he would not answer any questi.in he might put
to him --(Hears hear, hear.)—He stood there to re-
present the grievances of the ccuntry—grievagces so
enormous, toat they could no longer be borne.—
(nar, hear, hear.)—He spoke the language not of
himself. but of hall a million of Lnglianen—
(Hear, hear, tear)—and was the Houk prepared to
say it would not listen to that voice? Was it to be
endured, in such a moment, when the nation was
complaining of its wrongs frum one end to the other,
that lawyers should get up and truss-examine any
Member who, in the exercise'ol his duty, laid before
Wane dity La be
them the Petitions of the Pimple ?
told, one day, that tke names of peititiuntra must ap.