The Sun.
London, England, 1839-06-14 00:00:00

most desirable to avoid, but the attention of the
House having been drawn to the objectionable
wording of the petition, it became their duty to reject
it. If the petition hid stated that it was the petition
of Dr. M'Hale, Archbishop, and other Clergy of the
Roman Catholic Church, it would have been in order,
but in that case the petitioner assumed a title which
seemed to claim jurisdiction throughout a province in
Ireland, which was expressly prohibited by Act of Par-
liament, therefore it must be rejected.
Mr. O'CONNELL—The Hon. Member who had
just sat down was certainly mistaken, for there was no
law, within his knowledge, to prevent any person from
giving the title of Archbishop of Timm to Dr. M'Hale.
That Prelate was an Archbishop—was recognised as
such—for if he conferred orders upon any person, they
were recognised even in the English Church. There
was now no Province of Tuam in the Established
Church, therefore the assumption of the title by him
was not against the Emancipation Act. The Ho-
nourable and Learned Member for the University
of Cambridge, had himself admitted that no action
would lie against Dr. for assuming the title
of Archbishop. There was the petition in which it
was perfectly evident that the title had been as-
sumed by the reverend prelate. Let them bring
their action and try the case. He was entitled to
make the assumption both in point of law and in point
of fact. There was no reason why the petition should
sot be laid on the table. The title of Archbishop of
Tuam in the Established Church bad been destroyed
by Mr. Stanley's Bill ; and that being the case, Dr.
M'Hale had a perfect right to assume the title of
Archbishop of Tuam.
Sir R. INGLIS was not prepared to vote fur tne
rejection of the petition.—(Hear, bear.) The name,
" Archbishop of Tuam," having been appended to the
petition, the party, by himself or his agent, had erased
that signature, and withdrawn it as far as he could from
the petition. Practically, therefore, Dr. M'Hale had
admitted that the claim which he at one time was dis-
posed to urge, was untenable, and had finally and pub-
licly renounced the title. The law was not violated by
the petition as it now stood.
Mr. D. BROWNE begged to state that it was not
the intention of Dr. Al'Hale to renounce the title of
" Archbishop of Tuam," but that he claimed it as
strongly as ever. Dr. M'Hale had written to him,
authorising him to erase that designation if he thought
it was contrary to the privileges of the House, and
would cause the petition to be rejected ; but he still
claimed that title, because he believed himself to be the
only existing Archbishop of the arch-diocese of Tuam.
Mr. FRES H FIELD said the petition, by its head-
ing, purported to come from the Archbishop of Tuam,
and the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church. The
reason ther4org yhy they should not receive the peti-
tion was that it was offered as the petition of the Arch-
bishop of Tuam and the clergy of the Roman Catho-
lic Church. If, therefore, Dr. M'Hale had put a
mere mark to the petition, that would have been an
Adoption by him of the title at the head of the petition.
He should vote for the rejection of the petition, because
he believed such a course was essential and necessary
to the dignity of the House, and the maintenance of
any Protestant feeling that might still exist in it.
Dr. LUSHINGTON wished the House to consider
what would be the feeling excited in the minds of the
people of Ireland by this discussion, and he could not
help reminding Honourable Members that it was a
matter of the utmost importance that the House should
retain the confidence, and if posssible the esteem and affec-
tion, of seven millions of our fellow-subjects in Ireland,
though they happened to profess a faith different from the
Established Religion.—( Hear, hear.) But when this
debate went forth to the public, and when they saw an im-
portant petition, possessing not only the signature of one
of the Prelates of their own Church, but of numerous
other Priests and Ministers of that Church, about to
be rejected from the consideration of that House
upon such a ground of informality, he must say
that the Catholic people of Ireland would believe
they were anxious to avail themselves of every
technical objection which the law allowed to shut
their ears to their petitions, and avoid examining
into the grievances of which they complained.—
(Hear, hear, and cheers.) He felt it therefore a
matter of infinite importance the step they were about
to take on this occasion. Now that the Union
had taken place, and the Emancipation Bill had passed,
the House ought to consider the petitions of the people,
come from what quarter they might, whether from
Catholics, Protestants, or Dissenters.—(Cheers.) Let
the House look to the objection itself. He would first
suppose, for a moment, that it was a misdescription of one
individual in that, petition. Perhaps if might be possible
to find, some time or other, a single instance, but he
defied any one to show generally, where a petition signed
by persons giving to themselves a certain description,
unless in the case of corporations, that this House
had exercised this jealousy to examine into the
right and titie of such individual who might have signed
the petition.—( Cheers.) Let them show one instance
in which they had rejected the petition of hundreds,
because a man had ascribed to himself a title which did
not belong to him by law. But how stood this case ?
The utmost extent to which they could carry_ it was this,
that here was a title which the House did not acknow-
ledge, but they did not say it was a violation of the
Act of Parliament.—(Cheers.) If it were—if he
had assumed the title of any existing Protestant
Archbishop or Bishop, then the House might be
called upon to exercise its vigilance, and there might
have }won memo groam.l the netition. Ref
there was no one who claimed to be the Protestant
Archbishop of Tuam—there was no provision in law
-against-gr.-Remain Catholic Bishop calling-himself a
Bishop, and taking any title except a prohibited title ;
Was it worth while, was it decent, was it wise, was it
prudent upon an objection of this kind, to reject an im-
portant petition, containing statements appealing to the
people of this country.—(Cheers.)
Sir GEORGE CLERK said the rejection of any
petition coming from an influential body was a step whicn
ought not to be taken, unless there was a strong case
for it. The Hon. Member for Mayo bad an easy
mode of allowing the House to escape from its present
difficulty. He had been authorised by Dr. Al' Hale to
remove from one part of the petition the words—
" Archbishop of Tuam," but in the heading of the
petition the title was assumed as much as if it was
appended at the foot of the petition. He trusted the
Hon. Member would withdraw the petition to make
this correction in it, and thus relieve the House from
the difficulty in which it was now placed.—(Hear.)
My. DILLON BROWNE had no authority from
the Archbishop of Tuam to make the alteration
suggested, and could not consent to do so.
Mr. GOULBURN said, as the assumption of the
title was not justified by law, the House would not be
justified in receiving the petition.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he felt himself ill

able to give an opinion, because the greater part of the
discussion had taken place before he had entered the
House. He certainly wished the House could be re-
lieved from the difficulty.—',Hear.) There was an ob-
vious objection to rejecting a petition if it could be
avoided.—(Hear, hear, hear.) On the other hand,

there was the statement 'at the head of the

petition that it was the petition of the Archbishop
of Tuam, and the Hon. Member for the county of
Mayo had said that he was not authorised by Dr.
M'Hale, nor by the clergy signing the petition, to with-
draw that designation ; and this placed the House in a
position of considerable difficulty—( Hear, hear)—for it
was assuming a title before the Howie, which title Par-
liament could not recognise.—(Hear, hear.) However
much he should regret E 0 iii 3 rat, if the question
were pressed to a division, he Russell) must
vote against the reception of the petition.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL begged the Noble Lord
to recollect that there was no violation of the letter of
the Statute in the petition—that was admitted.—( No,
no, from the Opposition, and Hear, hear, from the Mi-
nisterial side.) Now, as the Statute was of a re-
strictive and penal description, surely the House would
not, in opposition to the usual practice of the Courts of
Law, -strain the Statute beyond its clear and distinct
provisions.

The House divided, when there appeared—
For receiving the petition
Against it

Majority against accepting the petition —B3

_ .
METROPOLIS POLICE COURTS' BILL.
Mr.- LA W -gave notice that on Monday next,..on the
motion that the Speaker leave the chair for the pur-
pose of the House going into Committee on the Metro-
politan Police Courts Bill, he should move as amend-
ment that the Bill be committed that day six months.
Mr. HAVES moved for certain returns connected
Pith the Britih Museum.—Ordered.
Mr. HODGES wished to know from the Noble Lord
the Secretary for the Homo Department whether it was
the intention of any Member of her Majesty's Govern-
ment to introduce a Bill into either House of Parlia-
ment for the amendment of the Tithe Commutation
Act, with a view to remedy certain inconveniences
which had arisen.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that it was the inten-
,ention of the Government to introduce a measure of
he nature alluded to by the Hon. Gentleman.