The Sun.
London, England, 1837-02-14 00:00:00

LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 14, 1837.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Fmnituenr 13.
The Loan CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack a
five o'clock.

Lord WYNFO RD presented a petition from a place (the
name of which could not be heard in the Gallery), praying
for the repeal of the Poor Laws.

EDUCATION IN IRELAND.

Viscount MELBOURNE said he would now give notice
of his intention to move for a Select Committee to inquire into
the system of Education in Ireland. A Parliamentary
grant had been given in aid of that system for four or five
years, and it was necessary now, in his opinion, to learn how
it worked. He would not, however, as the Right Rev. Pre-
late who had referred to the subject was not then in the House,
move for a Committee till Thursday.

' might be said, if the present question was one of a spiritual
nature, the House ought not to interfere, not having any
means of applying► a remedy. (Hear, hear.) But if
the prayer of the petition was, :that an inquiry should be
instituted into the conduct of the second order of the Clergy,
he thought the House would be inclined to entertain its prayer.
The subject matter of the petition was=—
The SPEAKER begged to ask the Hon. Member whether
he meant to found a motion on the prayer of the petition, so
as to institute an inquiry. If so, the course to be pursued was
to present the petition now, and fix a day for making his
motion.

Mr. MACLEAN would not pledge himself to move for any
inquiry, but he contended that he had a right to state the par-
ticular grievance of which the petitioner complained. On a
former occasion considerable discussion took place on the pre-
sentation of a 'similar petition both in the House of Commons
and in the House of Lords.

The SPEAKER begged the Hon. Member would confine
himself to the prayer of the petition.
Mr. MACLEAN—The petition stated that, in 1826, he
had been appointed to a parish in the county of Louth, and
had performed the duty of parish priest till 1834, when he had
been deprived of his parish by the mandate of his diocesan,
the Right Rev. Dr. Crolly—that the reason he had been so
deprived of it was because he had appealed to the laws of his
country against another clergyman, who had chosen to slander
him publicly. That petitioner had appealed to the proper tri
bunal, Dr. Kelly, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Armagh,
from whose Vicar General (Dr. Rogers) he had received a
promise that the charge should be withdrawn—that he had
waited for six months without receiving any retractation of the
charge.

Mr. WA SON rose to order. He had thought that the
general understanding in that House was, that no Gentleman
should enter into long statements in presenting petitions. If one
were allowed, then all ought. He had a petition of great im-
portance to present, and if the Hon. Member were allowed to
go on with his statements, he (Mr. Wason) would be shut out
from an opportunity of doing so.
Mr. MACLEAN was well aware that the Hon. and
Learned Member was a gentleman of very liberal opinions ;
he would not, therefore, expect to see him making such a pro-
position, which would shut out the right of petitioning.
Mr. WA SON—The order of the House was, that no dis-
cussion should be taken upon the presentation of petitions ;
but if any Hon. Member wished to bring the subject matter of
the petition under the notice of the House, his course was to
put a notice upon the book. That would not shut out any of
the public from their right of petitioning.
Mr. MACLEAN said if the plan of the Hon. Member were
followed, the public would be shut out from a most important
right—the right of petitioning —for it was well known that if
there were no discussion allowed, a petition was of no possible
use. That was a peculiar case. (Cries of " Chair, chair.")
The SPEAKER said, for many years after he had the ho-
nour of a seat in that House, no Member was allowed to do
more than state the prayer of the petition. (Hear, hear.)
That practice was ultimately departed from, and morning
sittings were instituted in order to relieve the pres-
sure of petitions. (Hear, hear.) A committee was
appointed who considered the matter, but its suggestions were
not acted upon. It was therefore his duty to endeavour to
bring back the House to its original practice. The people
would still have the same right of petitioning as they now en-
joyed, for any Hon. Member after stating the nature of the
petition could by giving notice bring the matter before the
House. But he apprehended that the clear and distinct
rule of the House was that Members should state the prayer
of their petitions, and with the permission of the House the
substance. But if every petition were to give rise
to a discussion or a debate, and statements were to be
made on one side, which would give rise to counter-statements
on the other, he did not know how, under such circumstances,
the House could have time for the discharge of its public
duties.

Mr. MACLEAN was sure that to any thing that fell from the
Chair he had invariably paid due attention. He understood
that the course to be pursued was to state the prayer of the
petition. He had done so, and was proceeding to state the
substance. The petition was of very considerable length, and
he was simply going through the facts which formed the sub-
stance of the petition. He was not arguing upon these facts ;
they were only occurrences that had taken place, and which
formed the substance of the petition itself. If he were al-
lowed to pursue that course, he would do so, and simply state
the facts of the petition. He was not reading the petition.
The SPEA K E R.—You cannot read the petition.
Mr. MACLEAN—Just so. He would, therefore, duly state
the facts, and endeavour to pursue the directions of the Chair.
Mr. WA SON—They had heard the prayer of the petition.
They had heard many of the allegations of the petition, and he
was sure the House did not want to hear any more of it.
Mr. MACLEAN did not know whether the Hon. Member
spoke for the whole House or for himself.—( Cries of question.)
Mr. GILLON had last session presented a petition from
a person who was actually incarcerated at the time. The
liberty of the subject was at stake, and although be endea-
voured to confine himself to a simple statement of the facts,
he was prevented -by the House from doing so. He hoped
the same course would be pursued in this instance.
Mr. MACLEAN did not recollect that precedent, but cer-
tainly the case stated by the Hon. Member was a hard one.
He (M-. Maclean) was following the directions of the Chair,
and could not therefore be out of order. He had been
stating, when he was interrupted, the grievances of which the
petitioner complained—that he had applied to Rome and had
an order from the Pontiff to be re-instated—that this order was
not obeyed, and that he had consequently been reduced to
great destitution. The petition contained some letters, with
which he would not trouble the House, especially as some of
them were in Latin.—( A laugh.) The petitioner stated that
his character was unimpeached and unimpeachable, and that
Dr. Crolly had offered him an ea eat to perform the func-
tions of hi, office in any other diocese, than that of Armagh.
He complains of having been deprived of this living because ho
appealed to the laws of his country. Under these circum-
stances, he thought the petition would not be considered un-
worthy the attention of the House.
M;;NR. BELLEW trusted, in common justice to the cha-
racter of the respectable Gentleman who bad been mentioned
in that petition, he hoped he mighthe allowed to say when such
a charge was brought forward, that a petition having precisely
the same character and object had been brought forward last,year
which was nut allowed ever to be presented. The petitioneretated
that lie had got damages—the fact was he got one.fnetbing da-
mages. He, would only make one observation, which was,
that the petition brought forward would have the effect of im-
pressing on the Catholic Clergy of Ireland how fortunate
they were in not being in any way subject to the care of
Honourable Gentlemen opposite.
Mr. MACLEAN said the Hon. Gentleman had imputed
to him an object in bringing forward the petition—( Chair,
chair)—that was not strictly_ parliamentary.
Mr. BELLEW rose amidst cries of "order, order, and chair,
chair." I only wish to explain, Sir—
Colonel PERCEV AL—lf the Hun. Gentleman opposite
is permitted to reply, it will have the effect of creating a very
angry debate.
The SPEAKER said in his opinion it would be better to
let the matter then rest. One Gentleman spoke from a peti-
tion in his hand; the other from a document with which he
was furnished, and if the discussion were further followed up,
it would show the very inconvenient practice of debating a
question upon the presentationof :petitions.