Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1810-06-08

4 -, 49, oSH~tJ ~ ouStN uce W NC 1t :
iected on account merely of the terms
inwhichit was conveyed. That might,
hereafter, be the cause for not acced-
ling to the prayer of the petition, but
hi could be no ground for refusing il
leave TO lie on the table. The speak
er had on former occasion, magni-
6ccntiy said, that the doors Of the
house ought to be thrown open to the
petitions of the peoples but if this petit
ton was now refused, that house might
be said to be shut against them; it
would be indeed, an act most violent
against the people. In one point of
the present petition he particularly
concurred, the prayer for reform; it
was indeed become highly essential |;
the country desired it, and the house
needed it.
The chancellor of the excheeuer
thought there was much of the lam
guage in the petition which ought to
have been omitted, and which. was
certainly calculated to produce very
strong emotions in the breasts Of those
to whom 1t was addressed. There
were some cases, however, in which
the fOrbearance of the house might be
most pruden,ly exercised, and IN his
fopinion this was one ofthem II Hear,
hear!) Suehwas also the case of Mr..
Horne Tooke, which had been refer
red 10. There was 40 doubt there
were many expressions in the present
petition, which the house might notice,
IT they were cautiously inclined ne
thought, however, it would be the
iwisest plan 20 pass them over. There
was no doubt their constituent. had a
right (and had exercised that r. ght) to
ask a review of measure which had
passed with view to reform. u'hcy
were now then only acting on former
IPecedent. He hoped gentlemen
would give him credit now for speak
ling his real sentiments, when he said
tina, he thought the petition ought to
he received.-(Hear heart! The ex-
preston TO which he had most obiec-
ton was that in which they reprobat-
led the decision of the house but
still he did not think even that would
warrant the tota rejection of the petit
ton. He would, however, act very
differently if he supposed the petition
did not contain their real sentiments,
but was merely Intended as vehicle
lof abuse.
( Mr. Ponsonby did not think the pc.
ltitioa contained matter which called
for it's rejection. The constituent Of
ten petitioned even against an act of
parliament; aud why should he be
now condemned for petitioning a.
gainst decision of separate branch
of the lcgislaturef The language of
the petition was, no doubt, in some
degree reprehensible bur still that
was, in his opinion, not sufficient cause
for its rejection.
/ Mr. Canning, though his opinion
was opposite to that of the hon. gem
tleman who opened the debate, yet
gave him credit for the spirit and
1 propriety with which he brought it
forward. Whatever form the ques-
tion might hereafter take, good must
have been done by the discussion. On
looking over the petition, it was obvi-
Gus that one of It's objects was to pro-
woke something of that kind of remark
which had been made, and that the
drawers sp OF the paper were trying
their ingenuity how close they might
rue 10 he actual insult. But if this
petition were thrown ont, the conse
quenee would be, that another would
he presented, containing insult equally
strong, but more dex,erously conceal
ed. Then the house migat be brought
into the dilemma Of having received
one and rejected another, while both
contained the same matter. The word
remonstrance," of which SO much
has been said, appeared to him not
worth consideration the only phrase
which really seemed obnoxious was,
that in which 1t was said that the house
offered an indignity to any class az the
people. This was not true, and there
fore not fit to be Introduced into PEI
tition; notwithstanding which, he
thought, from reasons already gwen,
it might be permitted to lie on the Ia
bic.
Mr.. w. Smith vas induced 10 rise ~
4 -