HOUSE OF LORDS. (Hansard, 16 February 1838)

§ Mr. Grote
had a petition to present from Merthyr Tydvil, signed by nearly 3,800 individuals. The petitioners prayed for universal suffrage, the abolition of the property qualification, vote by ballot, short Parliaments, and an elective House of Lords.

§ Viscount Dungannon
objected to the petition being received. The petitioners prayed for an elective House of Lords, which he conceived was irregular. He moved that the petition be read.

§ Viscount Dungannon
put it to the chair whether such a petition could be laid on the table. The petitioners prayed that the House of Lords might be made elective, and the acceptance of the petition would be an improper interference with the other House of Parliament.

§ The Speaker
did not think, that in strictness the petition could be refused. The House had allowed a discussion to take place last Session in regard to reforms in the House of Lords, and that discussion having been permitted, he did not think the petition could consistently be refused.

Mr. O'Connell
reminded the noble Lord, that the Irish peers had been made elective. The noble Lord was an interested party, and ought to have been the last person to start the objection he had raised, as but for the Union he would have been an hereditary peer of Ireland.

§ Viscount Dungannon
said, two years ago a petition had been offered praying for the exclusion of the Bishops from the House of Lords. To that petition he had called the attention of the chair, and the right hon. Gentleman had decided that it ought not to be received. He felt it his duty to recal that circumstance to the recollection of the right hon. the Speaker, as he thought the first decision ought to decide the fate of the present petition.

§ The Speaker
had no recollection of the circumstance to which the noble Lord had alluded. He had simply stated his own impression in regard to the matter, and it was for the House to decide whether the petition ought or ought not to be received.

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, no one could be more opposed to the prayer of the petition than he, was, but he could see no objection to its being received. Suppose a petition were presented to the House of Lords, praying for a reform of the House of Commons, or to 1229 exclude any person from the House who was perfectly qualified to sit there, and who was duly elected, he did not think such a prayer should cause the rejection of the petition. He was of opinion, that however much the prayer of the petition might be at variance with the views of hon. Members, still, as there was nothing disrespectful in the language, it ought to be allowed to be laid upon the table.

§ Sir R. Inglis
said, if the prayer had been, not for an elective House of Peers, but for an elective Sovereign, would the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, he would ask, contend that the petition ought to be received? He could not believe the hon. Member would. If the House were to tolerate petitions in which parties demanded an elective House of Lords, he saw no reason why others should not be presented asking for an elective Sovereign.

Mr. O'Connell
had not alluded to England. His remarks had had reference solely to Ireland, where the peers were elective, and where, but for the Union, the noble Lord who had raised the objection would have an hereditary seat in an Irish House of Lords.

§ Mr. Grote
observed, that from what had been said on the other side of the House, it might be supposed that this was the first petition with a prayer having reference to the constitution of the House of Lords which had ever been offered in that House. Such, however, was by no means the case, as many similar petitions had been presented.