The Earl of Winchilseasaid, that he had a petition to present, to which he called their Lordships' particular attention. It was in favour of the Established Church, and came from Dissenting congregations meeting in the city of Dublin; it was signed by 500 individuals; and he wished it to be read at length, as he had reason to believe that it spoke the general opinion of the Dissenters of Ireland.
The Clerk proceeded to read the petition; when he came to a passage in the petition in which the petitioners alluded to the reported sentiments of an exalted personage connected with his Majesty's Government—namely, that "the spirit of the age must be followed," and further, 1288 "that certain individuals of the Roman Catholic religion, who had sworn not to use any political power which might be granted to them to disturb or overthrow hereafter the Protestant religion, had not adhered to that oath."
§ Earl Greydesired the passage to be read again, which having been done, the noble Earl said, it could not be doubted, that this petition referred to certain expressions that were used by him in that House. To allude to such expressions was contrary to their Lordships' privileges, and therefore he was of opinion, that the petition could not be received.
The Earl of Winchilseacontended, that it was the right of the petitioners to animadvert on any expression that might fall from the noble Earl or any other individual in that House, and which had gone forth to the public, especially if they conceived that it was likely to affect great interests in the State.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he should not discharge his duty to their Lordships, as Speaker of that House, if he did not dissent entirely from the doctrine of the noble Earl. Nobody was more ready than he was to give credit to the noble Earl for the candour which he evinced on all occasions, and he would rely on that candour for having a proper interpretation put upon the few words which he should offer to their Lordships. It was a breach of the privileges of that House to make known the sentiments of any of its Members; therefore no person, strictly and legally speaking, could learn what was transacted within those walls except by their Lordships' votes. It was clear, then, that nobody had a right to publish their proceedings, and still less to comment on them. This, however, in reality took no right from the King's subjects, because if they chose to couch or draw up their petitions with a little more dexterity, they could evade (and he was sorry for it) their Lordships' privileges, just as effectually as their Lordships exposed themselves by the publicity of their proceedings to animadversion. With respect to remarks made at out-of-door meetings, or comments in pamphlets or newspapers, nobody ever thought of objecting to them; but it was not consistent with their privileges to receive petitions in which their expressions were thus noticed. This was the doctrine on which he acted last night when he presented the petition of John Lawless. He 1289 then stated, that he could not allow that petition to be received, because it contained a passage from a speech delivered in their Lordships' House.
The Earl of Winchilseaadmitted, that the doctrine laid down by the noble and learned Lord was correct; but he objected to its being only partially acted on. He could not see why that which was allowed to be given to the public might not be quoted in a petition. If it were declared, that not one word of their proceedings should go out to the public, he could understand the principle, and he would bow to it; but if they allowed their proceedings to be used in one respect, he could not conceive why they should not allow the same latitude in another. If acted on at all, let the principle be acted on generally. He certainly was not aware that the words alluded to were in the petition when he presented it. He laid it before their Lordships as emanating from a body of Dissenters who expressed their anxiety to support the established institutions of the country.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the difference between the more publication of their proceedings and the noticing them in a petition was this—they shut their eyes on what appeared out of doors—they had no right to know anything about it; but when matter of this nature was inserted in a petition, it was thrust directly into their faces.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, if this petition had expressly recited any words as having been used in that House by a Member of the House, such a proceeding would be irregular, and it ought to be rejected; but the petition did not state that they were uttered by a Member of that House; and though the noble Earl claimed them as his, it did not follow that other persons might not have advanced the same sentiments. For his own part, he had no doubt that the petitioners alluded to what had occurred in that House; but, while he respected everything that was connected with their Lordships' privileges, he thought that in a case of this nature, when a petition related to a subject the most precious—the subject of religion—their Lordships ought to be very tardy in rejecting a petition on any other than the most indisputable grounds. But, supposing that this petition did not recall any words which had been used in that House, or by any Member of that House, 1290 still he thought that the petition must be rejected on another ground, because (though the passage had not excited the notice, or called forth the animadversion, of the noble Earl) the petitioners charged certain Members of the Imperial Parliament with perjury. That was the part which, in his opinion, rendered the petition unfit to be received by that House. He therefore should not object to its rejection on the latter, but not on the former, ground.
The Earl of Shaftesburystated his conviction, that consistently with their Lordships' privileges, the petition could not be received.
The Earl of Winchilseahad no doubt at all about the fact, that allusion was made in the petition to what had been said by a Member of that House, where the expression "the spirit of the age must be followed" was quoted; but let the House consider the situation in which they were placed, when they allowed their sentiments to be noticed in one shape and not in another.
§ Earl Greysaid, he had never been willing to stand in the way of any petition; and in this instance he was not inclined to make an objection on his own account. He had noticed the matter, lost a precedent might be established for permitting allusion to be made in petitions to what had occurred in that House. With respect to what the right reverend Prelate had stated, he did not think that it removed the difficulty. The right reverend Prelate said, that it was not expressly set forth in the petition that the words quoted were used by a Member of that House, but he affirmed the proposition, when he stated that the words were of such a nature as to leave no doubt on his mind that they had been used by a Member of that House. Now, in a Court of Common law, if it could be proved to the satisfaction of the Court and Jury, that the general meaning and intent of certain words were such as to leave no doubt that they had been used in a certain place, and on a certain occasion, such evidence was deemed conclusive. When those words were used which had been referred to, the individual who used them was speaking in the discharge of his duty in that House. It therefore appeared to him, that with a due regard to their privileges, they could not receive this petition. With respect to the other point of which the 1291 right reverend Prelate had taken notice, he did not put the same construction on the passage as the right reverend Prelate had done. The allegation there made was quite general. The petitioners alleged, that certain persons professing the Roman Catholic religion had acted in a manner contrary to their oath, which bound them not to use any power that might be granted to them for the purpose of overthrowing the Protestant religion. Such a statement was too vague to be noticed.
§ The petition was withdrawn.