Lords Sitting of 6 February 1838

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, from Birmingham, against the abolition of the Imprisonment for Debt Bill.—By the Earl of DEVON, from Devonport, to the same effect; and from ottaway, in favour of Local Courts—By Lord WHARNCLIFEE, from Wakefield, for an alteration in the Apothecaries Act—By Lord BROUGHAM, from Perth, Tiverton, Wigton, and Bedford, for the Extension of the Suffrage, shortening the duration of Parliaments, and Vote by Ballot; from the inhabitants of Westminster, Chelsea, Poplar, Whitechapel, Bethnal-green, the borough of Finsbury, and from various parts of the metropolis, against the Canada Bill; from Dent, West Riding of Yorkshire, South Shields, Darlington, Morland, Andover, and Birmingham, against Negro Apprenticeship; from several places in Scotland, against any grant to the Established Church; and from persons confined in Gaol, in favour of the abolition of Imprisonment for Debt Bill.

WORDING OF PETITIONS.
Lord Broughampresented a petition from Lambeth and other places, against coercive measures for Canada.
The Earl of Shaftesburybegged to call the attention of the noble and learned Lord, and also of the House to the fact, that the petitioners in some of the latter petitions which had been presented had omitted to begin their prayer by the use of the term "humbly," which was not in accordance with the forms which the House had prescribed for petitions.
Lord Broughamsaid, there was no want of respect for the House in the terms used. The petitioners had styled their Lordships not only "honourable.," but actually called them "right honourable.," thereby describing them as being almost above all other persons, and then said that they "prayed"—they prayed of their "right honourable Lordships," nearly importing that the petitioners considered they were addressing beings above human —and yet that seemed not to satisfy their Lordships.
The Earl of Haddingtonconsidered the question to be whether the House thought it necessary or not to adhere to its forms?
Lord Brougham: There was nothing disrespectful in the terms of the petition. There was a word omitted from ignorance, as he had no doubt, and what of that? They were all ignorant of many of the forms of the House. He seldom saw a night pass without finding some violation.
The Earl of Devonconsidered, notwithstanding the happy art the noble and learned Lord had of playfully turning circumstances that might lead to important consequences off for the moment, yet that he regarded this as not to be overlooked. The fact was, that, in several petitions which had now been presented to the House, the address had been written by the same hand, and they had afterwards been sent round for signatures. Those petitions had all omitted the insertion of that word which the rules of the House prescribed, and unless their Lordships meant to form a precedent now, those petitions ought not to be received.
Lord Broughamsaid, as it might be all very well to abide by the forms of the House until they were changed, he would put an end to this controversy by withdrawing the last petition, which he had presented from Lambeth, on the ground of irregularity, as it had not the word "humbly" in it, and as that was the petition upon which the conversation had arisen, their Lordships need not know whether the omission was also in the former petitions or not, and the precedent-would thus be avoided.
Petition from Lambeth withdrawn.