The Earl of Rodensaid, that he had a Petition to present, to which he begged the attention of their Lordships. It was from the reverend Sir Harcourt Lees, of Black Rock, in the county of Dublin, against the Reform Bill now on their Lordships' Table. The character of the petitioner was well known to many of their Lordships, and, perhaps, though there might be some who did not think the opinions of the reverend Baronet entitled to much weight, those amongst them who had the best opportunities of knowing that reverend gentleman would think differently. The petition was rather strongly worded, but he believed it contained nothing disrespectful to their Lordships, and, therefore, he had considered it his duty to present it. He would also beg leave to recapitulate a few of its leading points. The petition stated, that it was the opinion of the petitioner, that if, in an evil hour, the Bill now on their Lordships' Table should unfortunately pass into a law, it would at the next election have the effect of sending, not a body of men who could be called the Representatives of the people, but a set of English Jacobin radicals, and of Irish Popish Reformers—a set of men who, probably with little property, and less principle, would pay little regard to the best parts of our Constitution. The petition went on to say, that, on behalf of her Royal Highness the Princess Victoria, daughter of the late Duke of Kent, and presumptive heir to the throne of these realms, he deprecated a measure which would endanger her succession to the throne, which 212 it was and ever had been, the great object of the radical and revolutionary Reformers to destroy. The petitioner also deprecated the Reform Bill as a measure which would have the effect of destroying the Protestant Church, sweeping away the Peerage, destroying the Monarchy, creating a temporary Republic, and ending at length in anarchy and massacre. He (the Earl of Roden) was aware that there were many of their Lordships who were disposed to attach little weight to any opinions of the reverend gentleman from whom this petition came, but though he had several eccentricities, he was a shrewd and intelligent observer of passing events, and it was certain that most of the results which he had predicted would flow from Catholic Emancipation had come to pass exactly as he had foretold them. He now moved that the petition do lie on the Table.
Lord Teynhamthought that such a petition was alt insult to their Lordships, and he would move that it be rejected.
§ The Duke of Sussexsaid, that he would be satisfied with whatever might be the decision of their Lordships on this motion; at the same time he must express his surprise that any noble Lord could be found to present such a petition. He must most strongly deprecate the use of such language, on the part of any person coining as a petitioner before that House, as had been made use of by this person. It was an insult to their Lordships to say that those who were the supporters of the Reform Bill were enemies to the succession of her Royal Highness the daughter of the Duke of Kent. Such language was an outrage on the feelings of many of their Lordships, which ought not to be tolerated.
§ The petition having been read,
The Earl of Rodenwould now appeal to the illustrious Duke (Sussex) whether in what he had just heard read there was any imputation whatever against the supporters of the Bill in that House. What was stated was only the opinion of the petitioner as to the views and objects of some Reformers, and as a British subject he had as much right to state his opinions as the illustrious Duke, or any other subject of the realm.
§ Earl Greysaid, he was not at all sur- 213 prised that the illustrious Duke should think it strange that a petition containing such expressions as they had just heard should be presented to their Lordships. He, of course, must deprecate the use of such terms as were contained in the petition, but whatever absurdity, bordering even on insanity, the petitioner had indulged in, in stating his opinions to the House, he thought that was no ground for rejecting the petition. The sentiments put forth were the opinions of the petitioner. Those opinions might be right or wrong, but however absurd—however they might border on insanity—still as the petition was, as far as their Lordships were concerned, couched in respectful terms, it ought not to be rejected. The petitioner did not impute to their Lordships any design of cutting off the succession of the Princess Victoria, but it applied altogether to persons not in either House of Parliament whom the petitioner characterized as revolutionists and demagogues. He hoped these assertions with respect to any part of the people were incorrect, but whether they were or not, nothing offensive, in his opinion, was stated with regard to the House. Whatever might be his opinion as to not rejecting the petition when once presented, he must say, that, if such a petition had been offered to him for presentation to their Lordships he would at once have declined to present it.
Lord Teynhamsaid, that, after what had fallen from the noble Earl (Grey), he would not press his motion for the rejection of the petition, though he fully concurred with the noble Earl, that, had such a petition been offered to him to present, he would have declined to do so.
§ Petition to lie on the Table.