Lords Sitting of 20 February 1837

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Bishop of HEREFORD, from Bridgenorth, against parts of the Fourth Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; and from the Archdeaconry of Ely, against Abolition of Church Rates—By the Earl of RIPON, from Lincoln; Lord KENYON, the Marquess of CLANRICARDE, the Bishop of EXETER, Lords MARYBOROUGH, BEXLEY; the Earls of CLARENDON, SHAFTESBURY; the Marquess of LANSDOWNE, from various places, against the Abolition of Church Rates.—By the Marquess of LANSDOWNE, from the Guardians of the Poor of the Hoxne Union, against the Alteration of Poor Laws Amendment Act.—By Lord BROUGHAM, from Okehampton, for some measure to extend the benefit of the Municipal Corporations Act to that Town.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND)—PETITIONS.
Lord Cloncurrysaid, he had to present a petition from a large parish in the county of Westmeath, in Ireland; and, as it alluded to a noble Lord who was now in his place, he considered it to be his duty to read it. The petition was respectfully worded; but it alluded with considerable feeling—with hurt feelings—to a speech made by the noble Lord in his place. The petition was from the householders and landholders of the parish of Ballymore, in the county of Westmeath, and prayed that their Lordships would take the Municipal Corporations of Ireland into their consideration, with a view to a reform of them as extensively and as fully as had been extended to those in England and Scotland. The petitioners expressed their regret, that a majority of their Lordships' House had thought fit to refuse their assent to the measure to this effect, which had been sent to them from the House of Commons, thereby inferring that the Irish people were not capable of managing their own affairs. In respect to the enormous abuses which existed in these corporations,
654
and the injury which resulted from them, arising from the want of a wholesome popular control, they had been so frequently detailed, that the petitioners did not think it necessary to state them; but they could not avoid referring to certain expressions which had been used by an influential Member of your Lordships' House, in which he called the Irish people aliens in blood.
Lord Lyndhurstrose to order. Petitioners could not, he believed, regularly allude to any expressions that had been used in their Lordships' House.
The Marquess of Clanricardewas of opinion, that this was a petition which ought to be received. The terms of the petition did not aver that the expressions alluded to were used in that House; but it did refer to expressions which might or might not have been used there. The words of the petition were,—"The petitioners cannot avoid referring to expressions which had been used by an influential Member of your Lordships' House." Now, he did not mean to contend that these words did not refer to expressions which had been used in that House, for he thought they did; but still he could only arrive at that opinion by inference; and it would be a very broad principle indeed, if they were to lay it down as a rule that they were not to receive petitions in which allusion happened to be made to expressions that had been used by a Member of that House, but which did not state that they were uttered in that House. That would be taking a wide range indeed. It was, however, for their Lordships' consideration, whether they would receive the petition or not. He thought that the petition ought to be received.
Lord Cloncurry, as the petition had been confided to him, must request their Lordships to decide whether it were to be received or not, for he had a number of petitions to present, in which the same unfortunate expression was alluded to. He was not, however, sufficiently acquainted with the forms of their Lordships' House to give an opinion, and he had no desire to invade their Lordships' regulations; but he would only say that the expression referred to, wherever it might have been used, had produced a strong impression on the minds of the people of Ireland, who were of opinion that the person who had uttered it must be an alien to the feelings which should result

655
from the Christian religion, or he would not have ventured thus to offend so many millions of people. Whether the petitioners were alien in blood, in language, and in feeling, from the person who had used the expression he could not judge. Neither could he judge, whether the individual who had thus spoken was alien, or belonged to this country or not; but he wished respectfully to say, that he coincided in the opinion of his countrymen, that they ought to have that measure of relief and justice extended to them which they claimed. He, therefore, left it to their Lordships to decide, whether he should present those petitions to the House, or return them to those by whom they had been placed in his hands.
Lord Hollandsaid, it was a very nice question to decide. Although the petitioners did not directly assert that the words to which they referred had been used in that House; yet, if it were their Lordships' opinion that it was meant to imply that such expressions had been used there, he thought that their Lordships could hardly receive the petition.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, it frequently happened that petitioners were obliged to allude directly to what had been said in that House, and yet their petition could not, in many cases, be objected to. He would instance petitions in which judicial decisions were referred to. [Lord Lyndhurst: In judicial cases.] He, undoubtedly, alluded to judicial cases; but he thought their Lordships would find it very difficult to draw a line of distinction, and to say in what cases petitioners should be absolutely precluded from alluding, even by inference to expressions used, or supposed to have been used in that House. He, at any rate, objected to the petition being refused, without knowing what the petitioners really did say. How could they know that without going to the prayer of the petition?
Lord Lyndhursthad only thrown out a suggestion to the noble Lord who introduced the petition, in order that if any reference were made in it to what had been said in that House, the noble Lord might see the propriety of withdrawing it.
Lord Cloncurrywas not disposed to withdraw the numerous petitions intrusted to him, all complaining, like that now before them, of the language which was referred to in it, unless the House refused to receive them. In presenting those peti-
656
tions, he was the representative of a large body of his fellow countrymen, with whom he certainly participated in the indignation which they expressed at the terms which had been applied to them.
Viscount Melbournesuggested that the petition should be read.
The petition was accordingly read at length.
Viscount Melbournesaid, it would be extremely inconvenient if petitioners were permitted to allude to expressions used by noble Lords in the course of debate. He was opposed to the reception of the petition in its present state, and hoped the noble Lord would consent to withdraw it.
Petition withdrawn.

REGISTRATION AND MARRIAGES ACTS SUSPENSION BILL.
On the Report of the Registration and Marriage Acts Suspension Bill being brought up,
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that the Bill as it came up to them answered every purpose for which it was intended. It provided, that the two Acts relative to Registration of Births, &c., and Marriages, which were to come into operation on the 1st of March next, should not take effect till the 30th of June, and it left in operation the 52nd of Geo. 3rd, which related to registration of births,
and the 4th of Geo. 4th, which had reference to solemnization of marriage,
which, however, were to be repealed after the 30th of June. This, as he had before said, fully met the circumstances of the case; and, therefore, the amendment introduced by the noble Lord (Ellenborough) on a former evening was unnecessary. He would, therefore, now move, that the words of the second clause "on such day as the registrar shall appoint" be left out, as in his judgment there was no necessity for the alteration.
Lord Broughamwas of opinion, that the alteration was necessary, for by the operation of the two clauses of the two Acts as they now stood; and, as without the alteration they would stand, all marriages would be prohibited from the 1st of March to the 30th of June, and all marriages, except those authorised by licence, would be null and void. His noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) seemed to think, that were the proposed alteration suppressed, there might arise questions of doubt, but not questions of difficulty, he (Lord Brougham) would,

657
therefore, merely show to their Lordships that questions of difficulty even might arise. His Lordship then contrasted two sections of the two Acts, and demonstrated that the dates were so at variance with one another as to produce the effect he had described. He had considered it necessary to make these remarks, as they would bear out what he had already said.
Amendment agreed to. Report received.
Bill to be read a third time.