Mr. Humepresented a Petition agreed to at a public meeting, and, as he was informed by the Chairman of that meeting, it was signed by the population of seventeen parishes, nearly 100,000 people having attended the said meeting, at Ballygroman, near the city of Cork. The petition, he acknowledged, was worded in a manner which was rather strong, for strict parliamentary usage; but it was, nevertheless, to be considered that the parties were irritated beyond measure against the existing system of government. They denounced tithes as an odious and an abominable tax. But he, as the well wisher of the people of Ireland, could have wished they had not inserted in their petition this particular passage:—"Happen what will, loss of property or of personal liberty, all will be freely submitted to rather than submit to be the passive victim, of such unheard-of spoliation." Now, he must confess that this language was very strong, and that the cause of the petitioners would not be improved by its adoption. He was happy to say, that he hoped the measures now in progress would have the effect of conciliating all parties, and put an end to such meetings, or the use of such strong language, though he could not but consider that the petitioners had too much cause for complaint.
§ Mr. Shawappealed to the Chair, whether the language adopted in the petition did not amount to a declaration that the petitioners would not submit to the existing law of the land: and, whether, if that were the case, the petition could, with just deference to what was due to the House, be received?
§ The Speakersaid, that the reception of the petition was a matter which must depend upon the construction of the words adopted in the petition. If the language was merely meant as a sort of display of words, the main object or prayer of the petition was perfectly legitimate, and it must therefore be received.
§ Mr. Leaderadmitted, that the petition was couched in strong terms; but it was the language of oppressed and uneducated persons, and, therefore, he hoped that the House would see that nothing disrespectful to it was meant.
§ Mr. Shawdenied that the language was 1029 that of ignorant persons, and quoted the passage which had been referred to by the hon. member for Middlesex, to show that the petition was couched in terms which rendered it inadmissible.
Mr. Sheilthought that the hon. and learned Gentleman should not quote particular passages of the petition without reading the intermediate parts. It would be wrong, perhaps, on the part of the petitioners, to say that they would not submit to the existing law; but the petition adverted to a project only, which was not yet matured, and, therefore, he trusted the House would receive the petition.
§ Lord Althorpregretted that he could not put the same interpretation on the language which the hon. and learned Gentleman had done, and he thought the petition was one which could not be admitted.
§ Sir Edward Sugdensaid, that the language of the petition was so violent and indecorous, that the House ought not to receive it. He should take the sense of the House upon it though he stood alone.
Mr. Callaghanhoped that the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would not oppose the reception of this petition, which had been agreed to at a public meeting of 100,000 persons. If, indeed, strong language were the ground of objection—if the use of strong language were considered to be disrespectful to thus House—then, indeed, he would merely beg to refer hon. Gentlemen to the evidence which had been given by Dr. Doyle in reference to the subject of tithes. He had declared that the Government might convert the Irish nation into a desert, but that they would never be able to make the Irish people pay tithes.
§ Mr. Huntsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Recorder for Dublin, had done the petitioners a great service in opposing them. Had the petition been laid on the Table in the ordinary course of proceeding, nothing more would have been heard about it; but its contents would now become generally known.
Mr. Humethought that the petition should be received, for he saw nothing in it which could be called disrespectful to the House, though the petitioners used strong language in respect to an existing institution.
§ The House divided on the Question that the Petition be brought up: Ayes 10; Noes 40—Majority 30.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Bulwer, Edward L. | Parnell, Sir H. |
| Evans, Colonel D. | Sheil, R. |
| Hunt, Henry | Wilks, John |
| Jephson, O. D. | TELLERS. |
| Leader, N. P. | |
| O'Ferrall, H. E. | Bulwer, Henry |
| O'Callaghan, D. | Hume, Joseph. |