§ Mr. Huntpresented a Petition from John Duffy stating that the Reform Bill was defeated by the Bishops, and praying that they might be disfranchised.
§ Mr. John Campbellsaid, he deplored the presentation of such a petition. It could not fail to be productive of bad effects. Nothing could injure the cause of Reform, except the indiscreet efforts of pretended friends. He likewise begged to observe, that attempts such as those lately made to dictate to Ministers, by certain parties in the metropolis, relating to a short adjournment were most decidedly mischievous. He doubted whether the petition ought to be received.
§ Mr. George Robinsonsaid, this petition had a family likeness to several other most extraordinary petitions which the hon. Member was frequently in the habit of introducing 891 to the notice of the House. He also doubted whether the petition ought to be received. It bore no date, and he hoped the hon. Member would be able to show how it came into his hands.
Mr. Humesaid, that the House ought not to reject the petition merely because it was contrary to the opinion of the House. With respect to the observations made by the hon. and learned member for Stafford, he begged to say, being thus called upon, he believed the opinion expressed in that petition, to be the opinion of a large portion of the people of this country, namely, that the political power of the Bishops ought to cease. He himself was of that opinion. He was surprised that the hon. and learned Member should think that that wish, as expressed in the petition, was a solitary wish, and that no part of the people of the country sympathised with it. He was equally surprised that hon. Members should have said it was false to state that the Bill was lost by the vote of the Bishops, when it was clear that as the majority against the Bill only amounted to forty-one, and as twenty-one Bishops had voted against the Bill, the majority would have been turned the other way, had the Bishops voted in support of that measure. He believed that the time would come for all these changes, but he admitted that this was not exactly the moment for discussing it. Then as to the observation of the hon. and learned member for Stafford, that these expressions of opinion and the call for a short adjournment, were like dictating to the Ministers, he did not agree at all with those statements of the hon. and learned Member, and he believed it would be only playing the game of the Anti-reformers, if the people of this country were to lie on their oars, as if they did not care about the success or the rejection of the Bill. Instead of doing this, he recommended them to use every Constitutional means of showing the deep anxiety they felt upon the subject.
§ Mr. Ruthvensaid, that the strong feeling which the people had manifested on this subject was both natural and proper, and he hoped they would continue to show their anxiety upon it in every constitutional way. He sincerely deprecated violence of all kinds, for riots were only injurious to the cause of Reform; but he trusted that all other efforts would be made to sustain the Ministers.
§ Mr. John Campbellbegged to be permitted 892 to say, in explanation, as the hon. member for Middlesex appeared to have misunderstood him, that he too wished he people to come forward in a constitutional manner in support of the Reform Bill, but not to send delegates at midnight to the noble Earl at the head of the Government, nor to address petitions to that House couched in such improper and unconstitutional language as the petition now presented to their notice.
§ Mr. Freshfieldcould not let this opportunity pass without protesting against these constant allusions to the Bishops—these attacks upon a portion of the Legislature, the existence of which was so necessary to the support of the Constitution of the country. He could not avoid, too, expressing his strong objection to the sort of language held by the hon. member for Middlesex, who, not content with saying that the Bishops should not have voted against the Bill, actually seemed to suppose that they ought to have violated their consciences by voting in its favour.
Colonel Evanssaid, that as the hon. and learned member for Stafford had alluded to the conduct of the delegates who had waited upon Earl Grey, he begged to say, that they had done nothing which deserved the censure of the hon. and learned Gentleman, or the imputation of having had intimidation for their object. If it had riot been for the tone assumed by the hon. and learned member for Stafford and by the hon. member for Worcester, upon the subject, neither the hon. member for Middlesex nor he (Colonel Evans) would have said anything, and the petition might have quietly gone with others of a similar kind to that receptacle to which they were all consigned; but as the call had been made, and as he had a strong opinion on the subject, he should be wanting in his duty as a man if he did not honestly state his opinion, that both the spiritual and the public welfare of the people would be better consulted if the Bishops had not seats in the House of Lords.
§ Mr. Leadersaid, as the petition before the House professed to be an Irish one, and its prayer was the disfranchisement of the Bishops, he wished to take the opportunity of saying a few words on the subject of tithes and the abuses of the vestry system. First he would observe, that those parishes in which the Tithe Composition Act was established were more 893 tranquil and better disposed than those which had not compounded, and therefore he was of opinion that system might be extended and improved, and if even a quantity of land could be set apart for the use of the clergy, instead of their being allowed a tithe of the whole, it would be a still greater improvement. Again he proposed to transfer the building and repair of churches to the first fruits repealing the Vestry Acts, and doing away with all compulsory cess for supporting the Protestant Establishments; to further these objects, he had prepared three Bills. The first for the extension of the Tithe Composition in Ireland, the second for the Commutation of Tithes, and the third to repeal the Vestry Laws, and making the first fruits available for the repair and building of Churches and other compulsory charges levied on the land. These Bills, under the altered circumstances of the country, he did not propose to introduce to the consideration of the House; the people of Ireland were extremely discontented, and when he saw English petitions recommending the abolishment of the Irish Church establishment, he put it to hon. Gentlemen what must be the feelings of the Catholics who suffered under its exactions. The conduct of the Right Reverend Bench in voting against the Reform Bill had materially tended to aggravate this discontent and dislike in both countries. They had to suffer from the evils of a bad system which was aggravated by their own conduct. Finally, he must say, that resorting to a Protestant Yeomanry to endeavour to preserve the peace and collect tithes in Ireland, would widen the breach between the clergy and the people, and be attended in other respects with the very worst consequences.
§ Petition read.
§ Mr. George Robinsonsaid, in his opinion the petition was a most improper one, as it called upon one branch of the Legislature to interfere with the privileges and rights of another. Besides, it was manifestly absurd. The petitioner prayed for a clause to be introduced into the Reform Bill, to disfranchise the Bishops. The hon. Member who presented it was the only person capable of performing the task; he must however most strongly protest against connecting public opinion with so ridiculous a petition as the one before the House.
§ Lord Althorpthought, that this was a 894 petition which, considering all the circumstances connected with it, ought not to be allowed to be received by the House. No one regretted more than he did the decision of the House of Lords; but a petition from a single individual, declaring that one branch of the legislature had not the right of voting, was a petition which he thought that the House could not properly receive.
Mr. Phillip Howardentirely concurred with the sentiments of the hon. member for Worcester. Although he deeply regretted the course which the Bishops had pursued with respect to the Reform Bill, yet he could not imagine they had acted from interested motives. Indeed, as they had only a life-interest in their sees, if such unworthy motives had any weight with them, they could have operated only to make them support the Government. As to their seats in the Legislature, they had at all times with the exception of the time of the Commonwealth, enjoyed them, and there was never fewer of them than at present. As the House of Commons was so particular in enforcing regulations to prevent the House of Lords interfering with their privileges, they ought to be equally tender not to interfere with those of the other House.
§ The Speakersaid, that the question of receiving this petition involved not only a question of the privileges of the other House of Parliament, but of their own. The petitioner might, on any general grounds, have prayed the Legislature for the abolition of the right of voting of the Bishops; but as the petition stated that the petitioner founded his prayer upon what he conceived to be the vote of a portion of the House of Lords; and as he could only know how that portion of the House voted by means of a breach of privilege, it seemed to be doubtful whether the notice of a matter, which was itself a breach of the privileges of the other House, was not a breach of the privileges of their own. In his opinion it was, and that, on that ground, the petition ought not to be received.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, it was impossible that the question could be put in a better and clearer light than had been done by Mr. Speaker. He fully and entirely coincided with the view that had been taken of the right of the Bishops to sit in Parliament by the hon. member for Carlisle. He would be always ready to maintain they had the same right to sit in 895 the House of Lords as the temporal Peers. The Press had assumed a tone towards the Bishops which was perfectly unjustifiable; indeed it seemed to be lording it over all the institutions of the country.
Mr. Humesaid, that if a petition to that House were to say that any measure were thrown out by the votes of the Scotch, or the Irish, or the county Members, he should consider it irregular; and, on the same ground, he must concur in thinking that the fixing the rejection of a Bill on any particular members of the other House, was equally objectionable.
§ The Speakersaid, that the hon. member for Middlesex took exactly the same view of the case which he did.
§ Petition withdrawn accordingly.