in 1685, and those with Morocco in 1687, and the zeal, tact and linguistic knowledge he manifested in these and other transactions with Eastern courts were at last rewarded in 1692 by his appointment to the Arabic chair in the Collège Royal de France, which he filled until his death in 1713.
He published Contes turcs (Paris, 1707), and Les Mille et un jours (5 vols., Paris, 1710–1712), an Armenian Dictionary and an Account of Ethiopia. But the lasting monument of his literary fame is his excellent French version of Sharaf-uddīn ʽAlī Yazdi’s Zafārnāma or History of Tīmūr (completed 828 A.H., A.D. 1425), which was given to the world nine years after his death (4 vols., Paris, 1722; Eng. trans. by J. Darby, London, 1723). This work, one of the rare specimens of a fairly critical history Persia can boast of, was compiled under the auspices of Mirzā Ibrāhīm Sultān, the son of Shāh Rukh and grandson of the great Tīmūr. The only error committed by Pétis de la Croix in his otherwise very correct translation is that he erroneously ascribed the important share which Ibrāhīm Sultān had in the Zafārnāma to Tīmūr himself.
PETIT, SIR DINSHAW MANECKJI, Bart. (1823–1901), Parsee philanthropist, was born on the 30th of June 1823. As broker to European firms he amassed a large fortune during the period of speculation in Bombay at the time of the American Civil War. In 1886 he became a member of the governor-general’s legislative council. He devoted his wealth to philanthropic objects, among the public and private charities which he endowed being the Towers of Silence and fire temples of the Parsees, a hospital for animals, a college for women, and the Petit hospital. He was knighted in 1887, created a baronet in 1890, and died in February 1901.
PETIT DE JULLEVILLE, LOUIS (1841–1900), French scholar, was born in Paris on the 18th of July 1841. Educated at the École Normale Supérieure, and at the French school at Athens, he received his doctorate in literature in 1868. After holding various posts as a teacher he became professor of French medieval literature and of the history of the French language in the university of Paris in 1886. He died on the 28th of August 1900
His most important works are: Histoire du théâtre en France, including Les Mystères (2 vols., 1880); Les Comédiens en France au moyen âge (1885); La Comédie et les mœurs en France au moyen âge (1886); Répertoire du théâtre comique en France au moyen âge (1886); and Le Théâtre en France, histoire de la littérature dramatique depuis ses origines jusqu’à nos jours (1889). Petit de Julleville was also the general editor of the Histoire de la langue et de la littérature française (8 vols., 1896–1900), to which he himself contributed some valuable chapters.
PETITION (Lat. for “seeking” or “praying”), a term meaning generally a prayerful request, and in its more important constitutional aspect an application for redress by a person aggrieved to an authority capable of relieving him. It may be made in the United Kingdom to the Crown or its officers, or to either house of parliament, or in certain cases to courts of justice.
Petitions to the Crown.—The right of petitioning the Crown was recognized indirectly as early as Magna Carta in the famous clause, Nulli vendemus, nulli negabimus aut differemus, rectum vel justitiam (25 Edw. I. c. 29), and directly at various periods later, e.g. in the articles of the Commons assented to by Henry IV., by which the king was to assign two days in the week for petitions (Rot. Parl. 8 Hen. IV., p. 585). The case of the seven bishops in 1688 confirmed the right, and finally the Bill of Rights in 1689 declared “that it is the right of the subjects to petition the king and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal.” Petitions to the Crown appear to have been at first for the redress of private and local grievances, or for remedies which the courts of law could not grant (May, Parl. Pr., 11th ed., 522). As equity grew into a system, petitions of this kind not seeking legislative remedies tended to become superseded by bills in chancery. Statutes were originally drawn up by the judges at the close of the session of parliament from the petitions of the Commons and the answers of the Crown. Under this system of drafting it was found that the tenor of the petition and answer were not always stated correctly. To obviate this inconvenience demands for legislation came in the reign of Henry VI. to be drawn up in the form of bills which the Crown could accept or reject, but could not alter (see Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, 3rd. ed., vol. i. p. 241). In the same reign the words “by authority of parliament” were added to the words of enactment, and from the time of Henry VII. public legislation has been by bill and not by petition. A relic of the old form of statute founded upon petition still remains however in the preamble of Appropriation Acts and other statutes creating a charge upon the public revenue. It runs thus, “We, your majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom . . . do most humbly beseech your majesty that it may be enacted; and be it enacted,” &c., from this point following the enacting words common to all statutes. The Crown may refer petitions presented to it to be adjudicated upon by a delegated authority. This course is pursued in the case of claims to peerages and offices of honour, which are referred to the House of Lords, and by that house to its committee for privileges, and in the case of petitions to the Crown in council, which are usually referred to the judicial committee. The Crown may delegate the power of receiving petitions in the first instance.
Petitions to Parliament.—Petitions to either house of the legislature seem to have been later in origin than petitions to the Crown. They are not referred to in the Bill of Rights, but the right of petition is a convention of the constitution. Petitions to the Lords or the whole parliament can be traced back to Henry III. No petition to the Commons has been found earlier than Richard II.; but from the time of Henry IV. petitions to the Commons have been freely made. The political importance of petitioning dates from about the reign of Charles I. The development of the practice of petitioning had proceeded so far in the reign of Charles II. as to lead to the passing in 1662 of an act (13 Car. II. c. 5) against “tumultuous petitioning,” which is still on the statute book. It provides that no petition or address shall be presented to the king or either house of parliament by more than ten persons; nor shall any one procure above twenty persons to consent or set their hands to any petition for alteration of matters established by law in church or state, unless with the previous order of three justices of the county, or the major part of the grand jury. And in 1817 (57 Geo III. c. 19, s. 23) meetings within a mile from Westminster Hall for the purpose of considering a petition to both houses or either house of parliament while either house is sitting were declared to be unlawful assemblies. Up to 1688 petitions to either house usually dealt only with some specific grievance. From that time dates the present practice of petitioning with regard to general measures of public policy. Petitions to the Houses of Lords or Commons must be framed in the form prescribed by the standing orders, must be properly superscribed, and must conclude with a prayer (May, Perl. Pr., 11th ed., 524, 525). They may be sent free by post to members of either house if they fulfil certain conditions as to weight, &c., (loc. cit. p. 531).
Petitions to the Commons must be in writing, must contain none but genuine signatures, and must be free from disrespectful language or imputations upon any tribunal or constituted authority. They must be presented by a member of the house, except petitions to the House of Commons from the corporation of London, which may be presented at the bar by the sheriffs, and from the corporation of Dublin, which may be presented by the lord mayor. There is no means of compelling a member to present a petition. The rules as to petitions to the House of Lords are similar. The lord who presents a petition is required to read it to see whether in form and contents it is fit for presentation. In the Lords receivers and triers of petitions from Great Britain and Ireland and from Gascony and the lands and countries beyond the sea were appointed until 1886, though their functions had long been obsolete. Applications for leave to bring before either house bills for private or local and personal matters must under the standing orders of both houses be made by petition; and the same rule obtains as to applications for leave to be heard in opposition to such bills.
See Clifford, History of Private Bill Legislation (1887); May, Parl. Pr., (11th ed.), c. xxv.
Petitions to Courts of Justice.—Strictly speaking, these are an indirect mode of petitioning the Crown, for in the theory of English law the Crown is the fountain of justice. But it is more convenient to treat them separately, as they now form a part of the practice of the courts. Appeals to the House of Lords and the privy council are prosecuted by petition of appeal. The
