HC Deb 11 April 1845 vol 79 cc495-501
Mr. Ferrand

had a petition to present from nearly 2,000 Members of the Dublin Protestant Operative Association, which was most respectfully worded. The petitioners begged to state, that They have of late been afflicted beyond measure by the utter contempt with which they have seen those principles treated which they have ever been taught to regard as sacred, and for the establishment of which their fathers laid down their lives. That they have been taught to regard the Legislature as the source from which laws should emanate to punish transgression, cherish truth, and reward virtue. That it is to the decisions of the British Parliament that the United Kingdom and its dependencies stand indebted (under God) for the establishment of true religion, in accordance with His revealed will; and that, subsequently to the era of the Reformation, it has pleased Almighty God to elevate the state of Britain to the highest eminence among nations. They submit that, if the British Parliament, instead of sanctioning and propagating the Christian religion, lends itself to the sanction, diffusion, and approbation of heresy and religious error, then would your honourable House, instead of being a national blessing, become a national curse. That they have learned that laws are about to be introduced by the head of the Government having for their object the inculcation, in public seminaries, of Popish principles, such principles being, according to law, false, idolatrous, and anti-Christian: and for the purpose of largely increasing an annual grant, for some time back most improperly and inconsistently made to the Popish College of Maynooth; and that they regard the proposition as highly unconstitutional, indicative of a man who means to subvert their national liberties, and calculated to involve in peril the Throne and the Constitution. That it is not merely the professed designs, intentions, and purposes of the Prime Minister which fill your petitioners with anxiety; but they are distinctly impressed with the belief that he has warranted, sanctioned, and advised, acts and measures which violate the established laws, and mark a total indifference to what those laws sanction and demand.

Mr. Roebuck

rose to order. He understood it was the rule of that House, against which he had often voted and spoken, that there should be no speaking on the presentation of petitions; that Members should confine themselves to the declarations contained in petitions, a statement of the persons from whom they came, and their prayer. He held in his hand a copy of the petition in extenso which the hon. Gentleman was now presenting; and while he professed to confine himself to a statement of its substance, he was by a sleight of hand reading the whole it.

Mr. Speaker

informed the hon. Member, that if he was reading the petition he was certainly out of order. He must merely state its substance. The hon. Member may have made notes of the substance, and he may read from them, but it was against the Orders of the House to read the petition.

Mr. Ferrand

said, he would confine himself to the substance. The petitioners stated that by the 1st of William and Mary, s. 2, c. 2, passed and declared to be inviolate at the Revolution of 1688, enacted for the protection for ever of the Protestant religion, as by law established, it is declared, that Whereas it is inconsistent with the safety of the Protestant kingdom to be governed by a Popish Prince, or by a King or Queen marrying a Papist; be it therefore enacted, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in Parliament assembled, that all and every person and persons who shall hereafter be reconciled to or hold any communication whatever with the See or Church of Rome, shall be declared incapable of enjoying or succeeding to the Throne and Government of these Realms; and in all such cases the subjects shall be absolved from their allegiance, and the Throne and Government shall descend to the next person in succession, he or she being a Protestant.

Mr. Roebuck

again rose to order. The hon. Member was clearly reading the petition.

Mr. Ferrand

continued: He insisted he was merely reading what was stated in the petition. The petition further stated,— That notwithstanding this solemn act and law, they find in the Dublin Gazette, December 20, 1844, the following announcement:

"Dublin Castle, December 18, 1844.

"The Queen in Council has been pleased, by warrant under the sign manual, bearing date at Her Majesty's Court of St. James's, the 14th day of December, 1844, to appoint the following persons to be Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland, agreeably to the provisions of the Act 7th and 8th of Her Majesty, cap. 97, viz.—The Most Rev. John George, Lord Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland; the Most Rev. Richard, Lord Archbishop of Dublin; the Most Rev. Archbishop William Crolly; the Most Rev. Archbishop Daniel Murray; the Right Hon. John Hely, Earl of Donoughmore, K.S.P.; the Right Rev. Bishop Cornelius Denvir; the Very Rev. Henry Pakenham, Dean of St. Patrick's, Dublin; the Right Hon. Sir Patrick Bellew, Bart.; the Right Hon. Anthony Richard Blake; the Rev. Pooley Shouldham Henry, D.D."

Mr. Roebuck

I again rise to order, and I will make a Motion this time. The hon. Member is reading word for word the petition, a copy of which I hold in my hand. It is a flagrant breach of the Orders of the House, and an unworthy breach of the same. I now move that the hon. Member be commanded to bring up his petition.

Mr. Speaker

Having stated to the hon. Member the rules of the House, I hope he will strictly confine himself to the substance of the petition; otherwise his conduct will be most disorderly.

Mr. Ferrand

I do not wish to do anything disrespectful to the House, or that is disorderly. I only wish to discharge my duty to the petitioners to the utmost of my power. The hon. Member for Gateshead was not interrupted last night when he presented a petition.

Sir R. Peel

I will only submit to the House, considering the peculiar nature of the notice which was given by the hon. Member of his intention to present this petition, and that the petition calls in question the Parliamentary conduct of a Minister of the Crown, whether some latitude ought not to be allowed to him. I think, under the circumstances, that he should have permission to state the contents of the petition.

Mr. Roebuck

Sir, I object to that. Is it not right to enforce the Order of the House? I myself objected to the making of that Order, and so did my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose. If the hon. Member wishes to bring these statements forward, he ought not to do it in this manner, immediately before a large debate, without the possibility of a reply; but there ought to be a substantive Motion, and he should read his petition for the purpose of making his Motion; therefore I cannot agree to the hon. Member reading the petition at length on this occasion.

Mr. Milnes

Would it not be better to have the petition read by the Clerk at the Table?

Mr. Ferrand

Sir, I will read the prayer of the petition; and I shall consider it my duty then to move that the petition be read by the Clerk at the Table. You will find it rather a long one. Sir, they state that this announcement By authority" is nothing less than a "communication" from the Throne to the Church of Rome; that church is recognised—the monarch "reconciled" thereto—its archbishops and bishops, who derive their episcopal authority solely from "the foreign prince and prelate," the Pope, are communicated with—their orders, solely of foreign origin, recognised, and, in virtue of the same, are invested with judicial functions by the Crown, and have conceded to them "preeminence" above a nobleman of the United Kingdom and a dignitary of the Established Church. They further submit that this flagrant contempt of the Bill of Rights does likewise directly contravene the Oath of Supremacy, for that oath compels the person taking it expressly to declare, 'No foreign prince, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.' Yet, notwithstanding this, the functionaries of the Pope are furnished with these powers.

Mr. Speaker

rose and said, that the hon. Member must confine himself to the prayer of the petition. If the hon. Gentleman wished the petition to be read at length, he should move that it be so read by the Clerk at the Table.

Mr. Ferrand

resumed,— On all these grounds petitioners most humbly pray your honourable House to reject all propositions for the encouragement and spread of Popish principles, to withdraw all manner of support from the Popish and idolatrous College of Maynooth, to deprive all the functionaries of the Pope within this realm of 'power, pre-eminence, and authority,' and forthwith to institute an inquiry into the conduct of the right hon. Sir R, Peel, Bart., M.P.; and if the premises of your petitioners be found correct, to impeach him for high crimes and misdemeanors against the laws and the constitution of the realm; and if he be found guilty thereof, to visit him with condign punishment for the same; and your petitioners further pray, that should your honourable House upon investigation ascertain that, though the conduct of the Prime Minister may not have so far violated law as to warrant his impeachment, your honourable House may still be pleased to present an Address to Her Majesty, calling upon Her Majesty to remove Sir R. Peel from Her Councils, as one who has disgusted all parties, who ousted other men from their places merely to adopt their policy, and who, if he have succeeded in replenishing the coffers of the Exchequer, has done so while carrying out measures calculated to draw down the wrath of Heaven on the land, divest the kingdom of its best and only security, and thus to render it but a richer spoil to the first foreign foe who may, in the just judgment of God, be raised up to scourge the realm for national unfaithfulness.

Mr. Ferrand

then moved that the petition be read by the Clerk at the Table.

The Clerk had commenced and read a few words only, when

Mr. Ferrand

said, that several hon. Members around him did not think it advisable or respectful to the House to insist that his petition should be read at the Table, and he therefore withdrew his Motion to that effect.

Upon the Question being put that the petition do lie on the Table,

Mr. C. W. Wynn

said, he thought, certainly, that there might be reasons why the objections should not be urged against the present petition lying on the Table; but if the House should decide hereafter that the petition was a ground upon which a Member of Parliament might by these means be called to account for his Parliamentary conduct, he certainly thought that it would not be conducive to the honour or advantage of the House to have such a petition laid upon the Table. He should therefore give his negative to the reception of a petition bringing charges against a Member of Parliament by name. A charge might be stated by one Member against another as the ground of proceeding to call him to account for his conduct, but the House ought not to receive a charge under the guise of a petition. He should move, then, to negative the Motion that the petition do lie on the Table.

Sir R. Peel

said, with all deference to his right hon. Friend, he did not see on what ground the House should refuse to let the petition lie on the Table. There might be parts of the petition having reference to the Parliamentary conduct of a Member of the House, but it also related to an act done by the Executive Government—the announcement in the Dublin Gazette. He must say he did not see any reason to object to the reception of the petition. The petitioners had a right to complain of that Act; and they were at liberty to form their own opinion as to the motives of the conduct of public men. He hoped his right hon. Friend would not press his Amendment.

Mr. Roebuck

observed, that there had now arisen a debate on the presentation of a petition, and hereafter he should not think it out of order to raise a debate on any petition that might be presented.

Mr. Speaker

The debate has arisen on a point of order, and not on the petition. I should have felt it my duty to interfere if an hon. Member had risen for the purpose of debating the petition. But the right hon. Gentleman spoke upon a point of order, whether the petition should be received or not.

Mr. C. W. Wynn

The question was that the petition should lie on the Table, which I conceived myself at liberty to oppose.

Mr. Roebuck

Yes. Then I am not wrong. The right hon. Gentleman has distinctly made a Motion, and raised a debate.

Mr. Speaker

referred the hon. Member to the Standing Order of the House, and explained that the rule was, that there should be no debate upon the presentation of a petition unless it had reference to a breach of the privileges of the House.

Mr. C. W. Wynn

withdrew his Amendment.

Petition laid on the Table, and ordered to be printed.

Back to