Lords Sitting of 10 March 1837

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lords BEXLEY, REDESDALE, WODEHOUSE, the Earls of SHAFTESBURY, VERULAM, HADDINGTON, Viscount STRANGFORD, the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, and the Bishop of EXETER, from various places, against the Abolition of Church-rates.—By Lords BROUGHAM and HOLLAND, from Edinburgh, and various other places, for the Abolition of Church-rates.—By the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, from Armagh, for an Inquiry into the working of the present system of Education (Ireland).—By Earl FITZWILLIAM, from St. Mark, St. Andrew, St. Peter, and St. Anne, Dublin, for Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill.

CHURCH-RATES.
Lord Ashburtonpresented Petitions from Croydon, Baling, and several other places, against the abolition of Church-rates.
Lord Broughamwished to know from the noble Lord, whether he was not aware that the great bulk of the petitions which he had presented, proceeded upon the notion that there was to be some plan for letting the Churches go into ruin altoge-
208
ther? The language of many of them he knew was to that effect. He himself deprecated any system that would prevent the Churches being kept in proper repair, and none of the petitions which he had presented, of so many hundreds, had the least idea that the Legislature meant to bring forward or sanction a measure that would have this effect, nor would they, for a moment, countenance such a thing.
Lord Ashburtonsaid, that the petitioners, in this case, certainly had presented their petitions without knowing the precise object of the Bill which had been brought into the other House. Nor did he think it at all likely that they understood the plan of his Majesty's Government; he must consider them great conjurors if they did understand it—he, for one, did not. The petitioners, however, were moved by this consideration, that they saw a large body of persons in different parts of the country with feelings avowedly hostile to the Established Church, and they certainly did present their petitions under an apprehension that it was wished to do something to the injury of that institution, and that a system of spoliation of the Church property was to be adopted.
Lord Broughamsaid, the statement of his noble Friend only snowed that though the petitioners, if they had been called on to express an opinion on the one question now before their Lordships, might have given the opinion which his noble Friend supposed they would, yet, in point of fact, they had given their opinion on a perfectly different question. His belief was, that if they had been asked, "Have you any objection to a measure for the abolition of Church-rates, which does not contemplate allowing the Churches to go into disrepair?" their answer would have been, that they had no objection to such a measure, but, on the contrary, would be willing to support the numerous petitioners who had come forward in support of the present plan.
Lord Hollandmust really say, that he had presented a large number of petitions to the House against Church-rates, but not one of those by whom they had been signed had avowed any hostility to the Church; so far from it, many of them prayed that a better provision might be made for the repair of Churches; and he was persuaded when the Bill for this purpose was considered by the country and the House, it would be found to be a

209
measure which would give relief not to Dissenters only, but to all parishioners, and to the Church itself from its present precarious dependence.
The Bishop of Exeterhad presented 100 petitions to their Lordships House, and he could state, that the purport of the whole of them was to implore their Lordships to refuse their consent to the abolition of Church-rates. The people were in a state of the greatest alarm on account of the proposed removal of that charge, which was more ancient than the right to any species of property in the country. He held in his hand a petition in favour of Church-rates, which he begged should be read at length—it was from the inhabitants of Clifton Morrisson, in Devonshire.
The Clerk having read the petition,
The Earl of Radnorsaid, he had a suspicion that the petition which had been just read, had not been composed by any one of the individuals who had put their names to it. He had yesterday a printed form in his hand of a petition which he understood was sent from London by the archdeacon of the diocese, with an earnest request that names might be subscribed to it. He had not the form to which he had alluded now, but, from his recollection of it, he could say, that the petition just read was word for word the same as that form.
Lord Wharncliffeasked the noble Earl if he had never known any previous instance of petitions having been got up in the way he had just described.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, he had never been himself, nor had he ever known any other person, engaged in such a transaction.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that whether the petition was a copy of a printed form was entirely out of his knowledge. He had, however, the strongest assurances that the feeling of the district from which the petition came was almost unexampled in favour of the ancient rights which they possessed. Supposing the facts which the noble Earl had furnished, rather than affirmed, to be as he stated, what did it amount to?—why, that such was the confidence and feeling of the people on this great question, that they were invited to look to a form of a petition, and see whether it did not embody their views and the expression of their feelings. He could hardly conceive anything more fair than putting before parties petitions of that kind and leaving them to decide for them-
210
selves. He had been informed, and he did not complain of it, that thousands of blank forms of petitions were sent from London by one of the Post-office receiving houses in a single night. With regard to the present petition, it appeared that the people—whether in a printed form of petition or not, he would not take on himself to say—came before their Lordships and asked them not to sacrifice their dearest interests.
Lord Hollandagreed that it could not be considered a ground of objection to, or of complaint against, a petition, that it was signed by persons none of whom had written it, though such a circumstance might form a fair subject for consideration when the petition was presented to their Lordships; but he would say, with great respect and deference to the right rev. Prelate, that he did not think the authorship of this petition was much worth contention; because, if he was not greatly mistaken, the petition contained as much unsound law and perverted history of facts, as it was possible to put into any piece of paper of equal dimensions. The right rev. Prelate had talked of the ancient impost on the people of this country to pay Church-rates. When the proper time came for the discussion of this matter, it would be for the right rev. Prelate to make out how the original intention of the donors or the founders of Churches was perverted, and both the support of the Church and the support of paupers were taken from the shoulders of the clergy, and put upon the people of the country. It might have been right so to do; but the right rev. Prelate would find it difficult to prove what was asserted in that petition, because the intention of the donors was directly the reverse. In conclusion, he must say, it was irregular, inconvenient, and impertinent, to discuss the merits of a question which was not fairly before the House, and which the public and the House could be led only to misunderstand by having it submitted to them piecemeal.
The Earl of Falmouthsaid, that to present a printed petition for the purpose for which the right rev. Prelate had so well explained, was not only a perfectly legitimate mode of proceeding, but one most conformable to the practice of the present times. But to accompany it with an earnest entreaty to sign it was another thing; and he begged, therefore, to ask

211
the noble Earl, if he himself knew whether the archdeacon accompanied the printed form of petition to individuals with an earnest entreaty that they would sign it?
The Earl of Radnorreally did not know.
The Bishop of Exeter: Not one of my petitions was printed.
The Earl of Radnordid not mean to say the petitions were printed; but his informant had told him there was a printed form of a petition sent round, and the petitioners were requested to sign it.
Petition laid on the table.

RECEIVING PRINTED PETITIONS.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, he had a petition to present against Church-rates.
Lord Holland: Is it printed?
Lord Wharncliffe:Yes.
Lord Hollandunderstood it was contrary to the order of the House to receive printed petitions. He had frequently had petitions which he was most anxious to present, but his desire to do so was overruled on the ground that they were printed. If a Committee were appointed, their Lordships would find that it had been repeatedly ruled that printed petitions should not be received in that House.
Lord Wharncliffehad been informed, that numbers of printed petitions had been presented to and received by their Lordships.
The Earl of Devonsaid, that the rule not to receive such petitions had existed up to three or four years ago; but on the occasion of the abolition of slavery, or some other important question, printed petitions were received after the subject had been discussed.
Lord Hollandsaid, he would beg to observe, that unless some decision was come to which would permit such petitions to be received, he would take exceptions to any that might come before their Lordships. It was the rule of that House not to print any petitions presented to it, and it would be monstrous if they did not print petitions presented to them, that they should receive petitions which were printed. This question was, therefore, a more important question than at first sight it appeared, and was one on which a decision should be come to in one way or the other, for he could not understand how the rule of the House could be got rid of by an understanding, or a mere conversation over the table.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that there was no order against the reception of printed petitions. Hundreds and thousands of them had been presented on the subject of the abolition of slavery, and the understanding under which this occurred was just as much an order as that alluded to by the noble Baron, as there was no written order on the subject.
Petition laid on the table.